Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42186197›Full record

ArticleMedical anthropology quarterly2026

Care without co-presence: Crafting alternative modes of involvement in UK intensive care in times of COVID-19.

Annelieke Driessen, Lisa Hinton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical anthropology quarterly, 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

2 authors.

Annelieke DriessenResearch Group Smart Health, School of Health, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Deventer/Enschede, Overijssel, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5627-1684
Lisa HintonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Health Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article we analyze how family involvement in intensive care in the United Kingdom (UK) was reconfigured through the reordering of proximity and distance during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the effects thereof. The introduction of visiting restrictions disrupted established modes of involvement in intensive care, prompting family members, hospital staff and, when able, patients, to craft alternative modes of involvement. Drawing on narrative interviews with patients and family members, some of whom had clinical training themselves, we describe three ways in which they did so: establishing connections and communication, personalizing care at a distance, and making kin and virtual co-presence. We conclude that the ensuing subject positions afforded involvement of some kind, but also came at a cost. Our analysis furthers the conceptual understanding of care practices beyond their reliance on proximity and distance, and highlights that their choreography shapes new possibilities as well as vulnerabilities.

Indexed as

COVID-19Critical CareFamilyAnthropology, MedicalHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCOVID‐19intensive caremodes of involvementseparationsubject positions

Identifiers

PMID42186197
PMCPMC13279848

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.