CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 279Technology Use by Older AdultsSocial Policies and Healthcare ReformTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Digital technology and nursing care: a scoping review on acceptance, effectiveness and efficiency studies of informal and formal care technologies

Open access
Krick, Tobias, Huter, Kai, Domhoff, Dominik, Schmidt, Annika, Rothgang, Heinz, Wolf-Ostermann, Karin·2019·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/s12913-019-4238-3PMC PMC6585079
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The existence, usage and benefits of digital technologies in nursing care are relevant topics in the light of the current discussion on technologies as possible solutions to problems such as the shortage of skilled workers and the increasing demand for long-term care. A lack of good empirical overviews of existing technologies in the present literature prompted us to conduct this review. Its purpose was to map the field of digital technologies for informal and formal care that have already been explored in terms of acceptance, effectiveness and efficiency (AEE), and to show the scope of the used methods, target settings, target groups and fields of support. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, the Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies, GeroLit and CareLit. In addition, project websites were manually screened for relevant publications. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifteen papers were included in the review. Effectiveness studies have been most frequently performed for ICT, robots and sensors. Acceptance studies often focussed on ICT, robots and EHR/EMR. Efficiency studies were generally rare. Many studies were found to have a low level of evidence. Experimental designs with small numbers and without control groups were the most common methods used to evaluate acceptance and effectiveness. Study designs with high evidence levels were most commonly found for ICT, robots and e-learning. Technologies evaluated for informal caregivers and children or indicated for formal care at home or in cross-sectoral care were rare. CONCLUSION: We recommend producing high-quality evaluations on existing digital technologies for AEE in real-life settings rather than systematic reviews with low-quality studies. More focus should be placed on research into efficiency. Future research should be devoted to a closer examination of the applied AEE evaluation methods. Policymakers should provide funding to enable large-scale, long-term evaluations of technologies in the practice of care, filling the research gaps for technologies, target settings and target groups identified in this review.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-019-4238-3

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Search results and publication selection process
Fig. 1 Search results and publication selection processCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Isfort M, Rottländer R, Weidner F, Tucman D, Gehlen D, Hylla J. Pflege-Thermometer 2016. In: Eine bundesweite Befragung von Leitungskräften zur Situation der Pflege und Patientenversorgung in der ambulanten Pflege. Köln: Deutsches Institut für angewandte Pflegeforschung e.V. (dip); 2016.
  2. Domhoff D, El Ali A, Huter K, Krick T, Stratmann TC, Wolf-Ostermann K, Rothgang H. Digitale, automatisierte Analyse von Literaturdatenbanken in Public Health und Pflegewissenschaft - Quantitative Textanalyse großer Ergebnismengen mittels Topc Modelinhg. Eine Darstellung am Beispiel neuer Technologien in der Pflege. In: Boll S, Hein A, Heuten W, Wolf-Ostermann K, editors. Zukunft der Pflege Tagungsband der 1 Clusterkonferenz 2018 "Innovative Technologien für die Pflege". Oldenburg: OFFIS - Institut für Informatik; 2018. p. 190–5.
  3. Weiss S, Bongartz H, Heuten W, Boll S. Applications Of Immersive VR in Nursing Education –A Review. In: Boll S, Hein A, Heuten W, Wolf-Ostermann K, editors. Zukunft der Pflege Tagungsband der 1 Clusterkonferenz 2018 "Innovative Technologien für die Pflege". Oldenburg: OFFIS - Institut für Informatik; 2018.
  4. Gross HM, Schroeter C, Mueller S, Volkhardt M, Einhorn E, Bley A, Langner T, Merten M, Huijnen C, Heuvel Hvd et al: Further progress towards a home robot companion for people with mild cognitive impairment. 2012 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC): 14-17 Oct. 2012 2012; 2012: 637-644.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Krick, T., Huter, K., Domhoff, D., Schmidt, A., Rothgang, H., & Wolf-Ostermann, K.
Affiliations
University of Bremen (DE)
Corresponding author
Krick, Tobias
ORCID
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-06-20
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
400-400
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12913-019-4238-3
PMC
PMC6585079
OpenAlex
W2952147205
Cited by
279
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 3
FWCI
7.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (16SV7821)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Policies and Healthcare Reform
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
informal care, formal care, care robots, sensors, information and communication technologies, electronic health records, online learning, long-term care, caregiver shortage, assessment methods, research gaps
MeSH terms
Humans, Nursing Care, Technology, Nursing Evaluation Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review