Effectiveness of Digital Technologies to Support Nursing Care: Results of a Scoping Review

Figures & data

Figure 1 Flowchart: Documentation of study selection process.

Table 1 Level of Evidence Scale

Level of Evidence	Study Type
1a	Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include more than one (well-designed) randomized controlled trial (RCT)
1b	(Well-designed) RCT
2	(Well-designed) controlled studies, without randomisation, ie quasi-experiments; or pilot RCTs (self-designated)
3	(Well-designed) case-control or cohort studies, (preferably from more than one centre or research group)
4	Findings obtained from descriptive, other observational and/or qualitative research designs (including case studies), cross-sectional studies, user studies

Table 2 Number of Studies by Technology Category and Study Type

Technology Category		Total (Single Studies)	Study Type
			RCT	Pilot RCT	Quasi-Experiment	Case-Control	Cohort Study	Mixed Methods	Cross-Sectional	Case Study	Qualitative	User Study	Reviews
ICT – all		69	7	1	18	1	1	5	7	16	9	4	14
ICT	HIS	9					1	1	3	3	1		1
	EHR/EMR	19			7				3	5	3	1	1
	CDSS	4	1		2	1							3
	Telecare	10	3		2			2	1		2		4
	Communication support	9			4			1		3	1
	Specific apps	13	3	1	2					4	1	2
	Other	5			1			1		1	1	1	5
Robotic technology		24	5	3	4			1		4	3	4	3
Monitoring/sensors		17	4		8					2		3	3
Assistive devices		7	2		1				1	1		2	3
AAL		3			2						1
Virtual reality		3	2		1
Multiple technologies													8
Total		123	20	4	34	1	1	6	8	23	13	13	31
In percent (of all single studies)		100	16.3	3.3	27.6	0.8	0.8	4.9	6.5	18.7	10.6	10.6

Note: Names and values of the subcategories of ICT are in italics.

Abbreviations: ICT, information and communication technologies; EHR, electronic health record; EMR, electronic medical record; CDSS, computerized decision support system; RCT, randomized controlled trial; AAL, ambient assisted living.

Table 3 Number of Studies by Study Type and Size of Studies

Study Type	Level of Evidence	Total	Studies on Institutions (i) (Number of i)	Number of Study Participants^a
				<30	30–100	101–300	>300
RCT	1b	20	2 (i: 5–12)	7	3	5	3
Pilot RCT	2	4	–	3	1
Quasi-experiment	2	34	4 (i: 1–271)	11	12	3	4
Case control study	3	1	-	-	1	-	-
Cohort study	3	1	1 (i: 1248)	-	-	-	-
Mixed methods	4	6	1 (i: 5)	2	2	-	1
Cross-sectional study	4	8	7 (i:5–2603)	-	-	1	-
Case study^b	4	22^b	9 (i: 1–3)	8	4	1	-
Qualitative study	4	13	-	9	3	1	-
User study	4	13	-	8	5	-	-
Total		123^b	24	48	31	11	8
In percent		100	19.6	39.3	25.4	9.0	6.6

Notes: ^aFor studies with intervention and control groups the size of the intervention group is indicated. ^bFor one case study, the number of participants has not been indicated.

Table 4 Direction of Results by Study Type in Percent

Study Type	Level of Evidence	Number of Studies	In Percent	Direction of the Results
				Positive	Neutral	Ambivalent
RCT	1b	20	16.3	60.0	30.0	10.0
Pilot RCT	2	4	3.3	75.0		25.0
Quasi-experiment	2	34	27.6	76.4	14.7	8.8
Case-control study	3	1	0.8	100.0
Cohort study	3	1	0.8	100.0
Mixed methods	4	6	4.1	33.3	16.7	50.0
Cross-sectional study	4	8	6.5	75.0	12.5	12.5
Case study	4	23	18.7	78.3	4.3	17.4
Qualitative study	4	13	10.6	76.9		23.1
User study	4	13	10.6	92.3		7.7
Total		123	100.0	74.0	11.4	14.6

Table 5 Number of Studies by Setting

Settings	Number of Studies	In Percent
Hospital	46	36.2
ICU	7	5.5
Inpatient long-term care	38	29.9
Daycare centre	3	2.4
Outpatient long-term care	11	8.7
Home	16	12.6
Cross-sectoral care	4	3.1
Undefined	2	1.6

Notes: Four studies relate to two settings; thus, the sum is larger than 123 or 100%.

Figure 2 Number of studies by target group.