ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Perceived usefulness of new technologies in palliative care volunteering: mixed-methods study with stakeholders.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face volunteer support for patients and families was not possible, making it necessary to explore alternative ways of reducing distress. New technologies emerged as a valuable resource, facilitating communication and information exchange, and supporting volunteer tasks.
objectiveTo explore the perceived usefulness of new technologies in volunteering among different stakeholders (patients, relatives, professionals, and volunteers), and to examine how these perceptions relate to participants' technological profiles.
designA cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted to explore attitudes and preferences toward new technologies. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through regression models, while qualitative data were examined using thematic analysis.
methodsParticipants were recruited through consecutive non-probabilistic sampling and included patients, relatives, healthcare professionals, and volunteers from various care settings. Quantitative measures assessed perceptions of usefulness, benefits, barriers, and satisfaction with volunteering, alongside the TechPH tool to profile technological attitudes. Qualitative data were collected through interviews and focus groups using open-ended questions to explore the perceived usefulness of new technologies in palliative care volunteering. Quantitative analysis involved descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, ANOVA, and multiple linear regression. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsA total of 402 individuals participated: 50 patients, 45 relatives, 136 professionals and 171 volunteers. Perceived usefulness of new technologies varied: 50% of patients, 63.6% of relatives, 77.8% of professionals, and 78.2% of volunteers found them beneficial. Three themes emerged from qualitative analysis: difficulties in new technologies use (mainly among patients), perceived benefits (e.g., enhanced communication), and the need for volunteer training in digital skills.
conclusionsAll stakeholder groups recognized new technologies as useful for volunteer support in palliative care, with the highest perceived usefulness among professionals and volunteers. However, professionals were the least involved in volunteer support. Patients reported the lowest acceptance, preferring a hybrid model in which technology complements, but does not replace, in-person support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.