背景:在Covid-19大流行期间,家庭探视重症监护室受到严格限制。作为回应,家庭通信已移至仅远程选项。这种沟通变化对患者和家庭的影响知之甚少。
目的:本综述的目的是综合现有的关于远程通信干预措施及其在重症监护环境中对患者和家庭结局的影响的研究。
方法:对相关研究进行了系统评价。
方法:数据库包含CINAHL,APAPsychINFO,MEDLINE,OvidEmbase.
方法:检索数据库的日期限制为6月1日,2011年至6月1日,2023年。两名独立审稿人使用混合方法评估工具评估了每项研究,用于随机对照试验的Cochrane偏倚风险工具的第2版,以及非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险,方法学质量和偏倚风险工具。在筛选的2292篇文章中,10项研究符合纳入标准。
结果:纳入10项研究(n=3861)。方法学质量大多较差,其中一项研究在混合方法评价工具质量标准上评价为高。从文献中得出两个主题:(i)患者和家庭满意度;(ii)患者和家庭心理困扰症状。五项研究报告了患者和家人的满意度,四项研究发现沟通干预后有统计学意义的改善。然而,五项研究中只有一项专门评估了沟通干预的满意度.九项研究报告了患者和家庭的心理困扰症状,使用12个测量工具。在这一主题中发现了干预措施的可变效应。
结论:这篇综述发现了研究重症监护中远程家庭沟通干预的重要差距。仅远程通信干预的交付不一致,偏颇的研究方法,变量结果测量工具影响了当前证据的信度和效度。建议进一步研究远程通信干预措施及其对家庭的影响。
BACKGROUND: During the Covid-19 pandemic, family visitation to intensive care was severely restricted. In response, family communication moved to remote-only options. The effect on patients and families of this communication change is poorly understood.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this
review was to synthesise the available research on remote-only communication interventions and their effect on patient and family outcomes within the intensive care environment.
METHODS: A systematic
review of relevant studies was undertaken.
METHODS: Databases included CINAHL, APA PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase.
METHODS: Databases were searched with a date restriction of June 1st, 2011, to June 1st, 2023. Two independent reviewers assessed each study using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised controlled trials, and the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomised Studies of Interventions tool for methodological quality and risk of bias. Of the 2292 articles screened, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included (n = 3861). Methodological quality was mostly poor, with one study evaluated as high on Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool quality criteria. Two themes were derived from the literature: (i) patient and family satisfaction; and (ii) patient and family psychological distress symptoms. Five studies reported patient and family satisfaction, with four studies finding statistically significant improvement following the communication intervention. However, only one of the five studies specifically evaluated the satisfaction with the communication intervention. Nine studies reported patient and family psychological distress symptoms, using 12 measurement tools. A variable effect of interventions was found within this theme.
CONCLUSIONS: This
review identified important gaps in the research examining remote-only family communication interventions in intensive care. Inconsistent delivery of remote-only communication interventions, biased research methods, and variable outcome measurement tools impacted the reliability and validity of current evidence. Further research on remote-only communication interventions and the effect on families is recommended.