ArticleBMC nursing2026
Efficacy of the intensive care unit diary: a mixed-method study protocol.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05288140 (Efficacy of the Use of Diaries in Intensive Care Units), which is not on this 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.
Efficacy of the Use of Diaries in Intensive Care Units
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple international studies report on the use of diaries in intensive care units focusing on benefits for patients, families, and occasionally professionals. Most studies use quantitative methods and have limitations such as small sample sizes and short follow-ups. Therefore, further research with larger samples and a longer follow-up period, employing a mixed-methods approach is suggested. This protocol aims to assess the efficacy of the use of intensive care unit diaries for patients and families and explore professionals' experiences and satisfaction. METHOD/
designMixed-method study: a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase. Phase 1: Randomised, parallel, non-blinded, multicentre clinical trial, with an experimental group (diary) and a control group (no diary), to identify the efficacy of the diary in improving quality of life and preventing post-traumatic stress and anxiety/depression in patients and family. Measurement tools include the SF-36 Health Questionnaire, EIE-R scale, and HADS scale, administered 2-, 6- and 12-months post-discharge. Each group comprises 120 cases. Data analysis will use IBM-SPSS (v.24) To evaluate the satisfaction of professionals a survey will be carried out. Phase 2: Hermeneutic phenomenological study with theoretical sampling. Size of 38-72 patients/family members until theoretical data saturation is reached. Data collection from in-depth interviews and field diary 6 months after discharge. Phenomenological analysis according to Smith. Guba and Lincoln's rigour criteria. DISCUSSION: This research will provide knowledge regarding the benefits and limitations of the use of diaries, based on quantitative and qualitative data, and will promote reflection on their implementation, considering patients, family, and professionals. This study will provide new knowledge about the satisfaction of professionals with diary implementation. This multicentre study will provide valuable information on the contribution of diaries in clinical practice and their impact on patient recovery and the experiences of families and professionals. If the efficacy of the diary is confirmed, it will mark a significant advancement in the care of critically ill patients, contributing to the expansion of their use.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05288140. First Published March 21, 2022. Version 1.
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.