Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41657978›Full record

ReviewPublic health reviews2025

Digital Informal Care: The Use of Technology in Family Care. A Scoping Review.

Vasileios Nittas, Alexia Bikou, Jana Sedlakova, Andreas Hellmann, Viktor Von Wyl, Milo Alan Puhan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public health reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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.

Vasileios NittasEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Alexia BikouEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jana SedlakovaDepartment of Informatics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Andreas HellmannEntyre GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Viktor Von WylEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Milo Alan PuhanEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To map the recent literature on digital health in informal caregiving, identify commonly used technologies, their functions and impact, as well as barriers and facilitators. Methods: We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative studies, published in English between 2019 and 2024. Results: 110 studies were included, most of which targeted informal caregivers in dementia care and used moderately complex, consumer-facing technologies for education and caregiving support. Positive impact was reported on various outcomes such as caregiver burden, psychological wellbeing, caregiver competence, quality of life, caregiver-patient relationships, as well as care coordination and efficiency. Barriers included limited digital literacy, technical issues, low accessibility, caregiving burden, and data security concerns. Facilitators were good digital skills, social and emotional support, user-friendly designs, and perceived usefulness. Conclusion: Digital informal care is emerging and shows promise in supporting informal caregivers by improving their wellbeing, skills, and connectedness. However, barriers and knowledge gaps remain, highlighting the need for additional research as well as more inclusive and person-centred digital informal care approaches.

Indexed as

digital healthfamily caregivinghome careinformal caremobile health

Identifiers

PMID41657978
PMCPMC12876001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.