Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36989024›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Health Care Professionals' Experiences and Perspectives on Using Telehealth for Home-based Palliative Care: Scoping Review.

Elias David Lundereng, Andréa Aparecida Gonçalves Nes, Heidi Holmen, Anette Winger, Hilde Thygesen, Nina Jøranson, Christine Råheim Borge, Olav Dajani, Kari L Mariussen, Simen A Steindal

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Balancing ideals and realities: health care professionals' perspectives of and attitudes toward digital patient-centered cancer care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Elias David LunderengLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7483-3174
Andréa Aparecida Gonçalves Nes *Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0684-1401
Heidi Holmen *Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1314-7813
Anette WingerFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9751-9698
Hilde ThygesenFaculty of Health Studies, VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5942-0662
Nina JøransonFaculty of Health Studies, VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9610-6333
Christine Råheim BorgeResearch Department, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-4219-597X
Olav DajaniEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9115-8529
Kari L MariussenLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1724-1911
Simen A SteindalLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7676-8900
Lovisenberg Diakonale Høgskole · NOOslo University Hospital · NOOsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NOUniversity of Oslo · NOVID Specialized University · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelehealth seems feasible for use in home-based palliative care (HBPC). It may improve access to health care professionals (HCPs) at patients' homes, reduce hospital admissions, enhance patients' feelings of security and safety, and increase the time spent at home for patients in HBPC. HBPC requires the involvement of various HCPs such as nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, dietitians, psychologists, religious counselors, and social workers. Acceptance of the use of technology among HCPs is essential for the successful delivery of telehealth in practice. No scoping review has mapped the experiences and perspectives of HCPs regarding the use of telehealth in HBPC.

objectiveThe aim of this review was to systematically map published studies on HCPs' experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in HBPC.

methodsA scoping review was conducted using the methodology of Arksey and O'Malley. The review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A systematic search was performed in AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1, 2000, and August 23, 2022. The reference lists of the included papers were hand searched to identify additional studies. The inclusion criteria were (1) studies using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; (2) studies including HCPs using telehealth with patients in HBPC; (3) studies on HCPs' experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in HBPC; (4) studies published between January 1, 2000, and August 23, 2022; and (5) studies published in English, Portuguese, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, or Spanish. Pairs of authors independently included studies and extracted data. The first 2 stages of thematic synthesis were used to thematically organize the data.

resultsThis scoping review included 29 papers from 28 studies. Four descriptive themes were identified: (1) easy to use but technological issues undermine confidence, (2) adds value but personal and organizational barriers challenge adoption, (3) potential to provide useful and meaningful patient-reported data, and (4) mutual trust as a prerequisite for interpersonal relationships.

conclusionsTelehealth in HBPC seems to be easy to use and may improve the coordination of care, time efficiency, clinical assessments, and help build and enhance personal and professional relationships. However, the introduction of technology in HBPC is complex, as it may not align well with the overall aim of palliative care from HCPs' point of view. Further, changes in practice and requirements for HCPs may reduce motivation for the use of telehealth in HBPC. HCPs consider themselves to have central roles in implementing telehealth, and a lack of acceptance and motivation is a key barrier to telehealth adoption. Policy makers and telehealth developers should be aware of this potential barrier when developing or implementing new technology for use in HBPC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/33305.

Indexed as

PhysiciansTelemedicineAllied Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelHumansPalliative Carecaredatadecision-makingfeasibilityhealth technologyhomecare servicespalliative carepolicy makersreviewtechnologytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36989024
PMCPMC10131609
OpenAlexW4321846041

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.