ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2026
The Effects of Digital Health Interventions for Family Members in Intensive Care Units: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital Health Interventions for Family Members of ICU Patients: Current Evidence and Future Directions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFamily members of intensive care units (ICUs) often experience psychological difficulties like anxiety and depression, which affect family functioning and their ability to support patient recovery. Digital health interventions (DHIs) offer accessible and timely support; yet, evidence regarding their effectiveness for ICU families demonstrates inconsistent.
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the impact of DHIs on psychological outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and quality of communication (QOC) among ICU family members.
methodsA total of 9 databases (CNKI [China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database], Wanfang, VIP [Weipu Database], SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 11, 2025. Eligible studies evaluated DHIs targeting adult ICU patients' family members and reported psychological outcomes, QoL, or QOC; interventions used solely for monitoring or tracking were excluded. Furthermore, 2 reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. Prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated to reflect between-study heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were performed by patients' primary diagnosis, relationship with patients, and type of digital health technology. Evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
resultsIn total, 17 RCTs involving 1864 participants were included. Interrater agreement was high across study selection and assessment processes (κ=0.55-1.00). Most studies were judged to have some concerns about the risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no statistically significant pooled effects of DHIs on anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.34, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.00; 95% PI -1.46 to 0.79; P=.05), depression (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.01; 95% PI -1.11 to 0.60; P=.06), posttraumatic stress disorder (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 95% PI -1.03 to 0.60; P=.11), QoL (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28; 95% PI -0.41 to 0.60; P=.36), or QOC (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.31; 95% PI -0.26 to 0.55; P=.10). Wide PIs indicated substantial variability in intervention effects across settings. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.
conclusionsThis review emphasizes significant uncertainty in estimated effects and provides the first thorough synthesis of RCT evidence on DHIs for ICU family members. The inherently high heterogeneity and low certainty of the underlying evidence limit the conclusions of this review, despite its methodological rigor and use of PIs. Compared with previous reviews, this review concentrates on the ICU family members and includes more recent research. Future studies should focus on high-risk subgroups, use mixed methods designs, and develop theory-informed, personalized, and interactive DHIs. DHIs may enable proactive, customized communication techniques for families of ICU patients, even when there are few formal clinical recommendations.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251044704; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251044704.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.