Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41542141›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient experience2026

Digital Postintensive Care Support: A Comparative Survey Study Among Survivors Across Four European Countries.

Esra van Olst, Anna Zacharelou, Friganovic Adriano, Christina Jones, Peter Nydahl, Mmc van Mol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient experience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Esra van OlstDepartment of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Anna ZacharelouDepartment of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Friganovic AdrianoDepartment of Quality Assurance and Improvement, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Christina JonesICUsteps Charity, London, UK.
Peter NydahlNursing Research, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Mmc van MolDepartment of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0213-6054

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professionals in intensive care units (ICUs) should increasingly consider digital innovation in high-quality specialized recovery programs that are easily accessible for ICU survivors and their family members. However, a gap in the literature exists on what is known about the perspectives among the expected users for these digital applications in different healthcare systems. This study explores the differences in perspectives toward digital interventions in post-ICU support among ICU survivors across 4 European countries. A quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted using an investigator developed questionnaire to assess perspectives on digital interventions across Croatia, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Among 106 ICU participants, the majority was female (63.0%) and aged between 46 and 55 years (36.8%). Three key factors related to digital post-ICU support were identified: perception (ie, perceived effectiveness and relevance of digital health program content), accessibility, and openness to digital health technologies. Interestingly, no significant differences across countries or demographic groups were found. Digital health interventions can provide effective and personalized support to individuals facing similar health challenges across different countries.

Indexed as

digital healthexperiencesintensive carepersonalized careperspectivessurvivors

Identifiers

PMID41542141
PMCPMC12800010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.