Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39705075›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Patient Organizations' Digital Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.

Simon Wallraf, Marie-Luise Dierks, Cosima John, Jonas Lander

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors.

Simon WallrafInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8553-2844
Marie-Luise DierksInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0225-6048
Cosima JohnInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.ORCID 0009-0000-8356-2209
Jonas LanderInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4960-3307

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient organizations (POs) play a crucial role in supporting individuals with health conditions. Their activities range from counseling to support groups to advocacy. The COVID-19 pandemic and its related public health measures prompted rapid digital transformation efforts across multiple sectors, including health care.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore how POs digitally responded to pandemic-related circumstances, focusing on aspects such as the technologies used, positive outcomes, and challenges encountered.

methodsThis scoping review followed the methodological guidance of the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology Group and adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the WHO (World Health Organization) COVID-19 database, supplemented by a citation search approach, was conducted. The initial search was performed on November 10, 2022, and updated on November 8, 2023. Publications were eligible if they were published after November 30, 2019, and addressed pandemic-related digitalization efforts of POs, defined as nonprofit organizations with a focus on health-related support. A 2-step screening process was used to identify relevant literature. Data were extracted using a standardized table to capture aspects such as digital adaptation activities (eg, types of technologies implemented, positive outcomes, challenges, and facilitating factors) and coded inductively to identify similarities across included publications, and the findings were synthesized narratively.

resultsThe search and its subsequent update yielded 2212 records, with 13 articles included in this review. These articles revealed a range of PO services that were digitally adapted during the pandemic, with videoconferencing software emerging as the most commonly used tool (n=9 articles). The digital adaptation of group-based support activities was the most frequently reported transformation (n=9). Other adaptations included the digitalization of counseling services (n=3) and the delivery of information and education (n=3), including educational workshops, weekly webinars, and the dissemination of information through digital newsletters. While the use of digital formats, particularly for POs' group activities, often increased accessibility by breaking down preexisting barriers (n=5), they also created new barriers for certain groups, such as those lacking digital skills or resources (n=4). Some participants experienced a loss of interpersonal aspects, like a sense of community (n=3). However, further findings suggest that the digital delivery of such group activities preserved essential interpersonal aspects (n=7) and a preference among some participants to continue digital group activities (n=4), suggesting the potential for sustainability of such options post the COVID-19 pandemic.

conclusionsThe rapid digitalization efforts of POs demonstrate their adaptability and the potential of digital technologies to improve support services, despite some challenges. Future digitalization strategies should focus, among other things, on promoting digital literacy to ensure the accessibility and inclusiveness of digital services.

trial registrationOSF Registries, https://osf.io/anvf4.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansSARS-CoV-2TelemedicineCOVID-19digital adaptationdigital transformationpatient organizationsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID39705075
PMCPMC11699494

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.