ArticleBMC nursing2025
Community nurses' experiences with digital sensory interventions in remote primary care: a qualitative descriptive study of trust, privacy, and family dynamics.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity nurses increasingly use digital sensory interventions (DSIs), audio-first elicitation, data-enabled inputs, and selectively visual, opt-in steps coordinated via Field-of-View (FoV) negotiation to assess patients at home, where trust, privacy, and family dynamics are decisive.
aimTo describe how community nurses enact DSIs in remote primary care and how these practices shape trust-building/repair, privacy protection, and family-role orchestration.
methodsQualitative descriptive study across three community nursing services in Al-Majmaah, Saudi Arabia. Purposive maximum-variation sampling recruited 24 Registered Nurses for semi-structured interviews (March–June 2025; Arabic/English). Data were transcribed, de-identified, bilingual-checked, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (NVivo 14) within a pragmatic–constructivist stance; information power guided sufficiency. Trustworthiness procedures included peer debriefing, disconfirming-case analysis, and an audit trail.
resultsA four-theme model explained DSI enactment. (1) Stepwise workflow: pre-brief/environment setup → FoV negotiation (if needed) → coached audio-led tests aligned with device data; when discrepant, real-time clinical cues (audio and, when consented, visual) were prioritized over asynchronous logs. (2) Trust work: transparent narration, post-glitch recap, and patient control at intimate junctures. (3) Privacy as boundary work: dynamic consent refresh, FoV zoning/presence management, and modality switching/pausing with documentation in a privacy-actions field. (4) Family roles: deliberate, bounded tasking to preserve patient-first talk and curb gatekeeping. Outputs include teachable micro-practices for curricula and protocol.
conclusionsDSIs are nurse-led sociotechnical practices requiring codified workflow safeguards, consent-in-action, narrated modality management, and governed family roles. Findings translate into a DSI safety bundle, tele-OSCE curricula, and EHR prompts for ethical, person-centred remote care. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.