Impact of social media interventions and tools among informal caregivers of critically ill patients after patient admission to the intensive care unit: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of social media in healthcare continues to evolve. The purpose of this scoping review was to summarize existing research on the impact of social media interventions and tools among informal caregivers of critically ill patients after patient admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This review followed established scoping review methods, including an extensive a priori-defined search strategy implemented in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials databases to July 10, 2020. Primary research studies reporting on the use of social media by informal caregivers for critically ill patients were included. RESULTS: We identified 400 unique citations and thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine were interventional trials-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs)-and a majority (n = 14) were conducted (i.e., data collected) between 2013 to 2015. Communication platforms (e.g., Text Messaging, Web Camera) were the most commonly used social media tool (n = 17), followed by social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) (n = 6), and content communities (e.g., YouTube, SlideShare) (n = 5). Nine studies' primary objective was caregiver satisfaction, followed by self-care (n = 6), and health literacy (n = 5). Nearly every study reported an outcome on usage feasibility (e.g., user attitudes, preferences, demographics) (n = 30), and twenty-three studies reported an outcome related to patient and caregiver satisfaction. Among the studies that assessed statistical significance (n = 18), 12 reported statistically significant positive effects of social media use. Overall, 16 of the 31 studies reported positive conclusions (e.g., increased knowledge, satisfaction, involvement) regarding the use of social media among informal caregivers for critically ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Social media has potential benefits for caregivers of the critically ill. More robust and clinically relevant studies are required to identify effective social media strategies used among caregivers for the critically ill.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".