Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Telemedicine | Research

Feeling safe in the context of digitalization in healthcare: a scoping review

Authors: Peter Minartz, Christine Maria Aumann, Carmen Vondeberg, Silke Kuske

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Digitalization in healthcare and society can be challenging, particularly for people who have limited digital experiences. New digital technologies can influence individuals’ perceived safety and well-being. In this study, we aimed to identify and analyze the literature on needs and influencing factors in the context of emotional and psychological safety and digitalization in healthcare.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted based on the PRISMA-ScR standard. The literature was searched based on the databases Medline via PubMed, PsycINFO via Ovid, and CINAHL via EBSCO. Literature was included after a review of the titles, abstracts, and full texts published in English or German in the last 5 years (October 2017–September 2022). Eligible literature included definitions and descriptions of emotional and/or psychological safety and was related to digitalization in healthcare and was analyzed qualitatively via inductive content analysis. The findings were analyzed from ethical, psychosocial, legal, economic, and political perspectives.

Results

A total of 32 publications were finally included thereof qualitative (n = 20), quantitative (n = 3), and mixed methods (n = 2) studies. Other included publications were systematic integrative reviews, scoping reviews, narrative reviews, white papers, and ethical statements. Of these publications, four qualitative studies focused on emotional or psychological safety in the context of digital technology use in healthcare as a primary research aim. Most literature has shown that perceived safety is influenced by perceived changes in healthcare, digital (health) literacy, the design of digital technology, and need orientation. The needs identified in this context overlap strongly with the influencing factors. A low or high perceived safety has an impact on users’ thoughts and actions.

Conclusion

The importance of emotional safety in the context of digital technologies in healthcare is growing, while psychological safety seems to be underrepresented. The interaction between the influencing factors and the need to feel safe leads to considerations that can affect user behavior and have far-reaching outcomes for the implementation of digital technology in healthcare.

Systematic review registration

Open Science Framework Registries on 16 December 2022 https://​doi.​org/​10.​17605/​OSF.​IO/​HVYPT.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Iyamu I, Xu AXT, Gómez-Ramírez O, Ablona A, Chang HJ, Mckee G, et al. Defining digital public health and the role of digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation: scoping review. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021;7(11):e30399.
2.
Nakrem S, Solbjør M, Pettersen IN, Kleiven HH. Care relationships at stake? Home healthcare professionals’ experiences with digital medicine dispensers - A qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–10.
3.
Nyholm L, Santamäki-Fischer R, Fagerström L. Users’ ambivalent sense of security with humanoid robots in healthcare. Inform Health Soc Care. 2021;46(2):218–26.
4.
Okhrimenko I, Sovik I, Pyankova S, Lukyanova A. Digital transformation of the socioeconomic system: Prospects for digitalization in society. Espacios. 2019;40(38):26–34.
5.
Lyndon A, Davis D-A, Sharma AE, Scott KA. Emotional safety is patient safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2023;0:1–4.
6.
Åkerlind C, Martin L, Gustafsson C. eHomecare and safety: The experiences of older patients and their relatives. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap). 2018;39(2):178–85.
7.
Widberg C, Wiklund B, Klarare A. Patients’ experiences of eHealth in palliative care: an integrative review. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19(1):1–14.
8.
Landers C, Vayena E, Amann J, Blasimme A. Stuck in translation: Stakeholder perspectives on impediments to responsible digital health. Front Digit Health. 2023;5:1069410.
9.
Raja M, Uhrenfeldt L, Galvin KT, Kymre IG. Older adults` sense of dignity in digitally led healthcare. Nurs Ethics. 2022;29(6):1518–29.
10.
Cummins N, Schuller BW. Five Crucial Challenges in Digital Health. Front Digit Health. 2020;2:536203.
11.
Akalin N, Kristoffersson A, Loutfi A. Do you feel safe with your robot? Factors influencing perceived safety in human-robot interaction based on subjective and objective measures. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2022;158:102744.CrossRef
12.
Strand AS, Johnsson B, Hena M, Magnusson B, Hallström IK. Developing eHealth in neonatal care to enhance parents’ self-management. Scand J Caring Sci. 2022;36(4):969–77.
13.
Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. 1943;50(4):370–96.
14.
Fagerström L, Gustafson Y, Jakobsson G, Johansson S, Vartiainen P. Sense of security among people aged 65 and 75: External and inner sources of security. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(6):1305–16.
15.
Lang A, Edwards N, Fleiszer A. Safety in home care: A broadened perspective of patient safety. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(2):130–5.
16.
Kuske S, Borgmann SO, Wolf F, Bleck C. Emotional Safety in the Context of Dementia: A Multiperspective Qualitative Study. J Alzheimer’s Dis. 2021;79(1):355–75. 
17.
Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot. 2009;1(1):71–81. 
18.
Hoaas H, Andreassen HK, Lien LA, Hjalmarsen A, Zanaboni P. Adherence and factors affecting satisfaction in long-term telerehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A mixed methods study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(26):1–14.
19.
O’Donovan R, McAuliffe E. Exploring psychological safety in healthcare teams to inform the development of interventions: Combining observational, survey and interview data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1–16. 
20.
Grailey KE, Murray E, Reader T, Brett SJ. The presence and potential impact of psychological safety in the healthcare setting: an evidence synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–15.
21.
Edmondson AC, Lei Z. Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2014;1(1):23–43.
22.
Frazier ML, Fainshmidt S, Klinger RL, Pezeshkan A, Vracheva V. Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Pers Psychol. 2017;70(1):113–65.
23.
Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: An overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):1–13.
24.
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2011;38(2):65–76.
25.
Hajiheydari N, Delgosha MS, Olya H. Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioural reasoning theory with configurational perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021;169:120807.
26.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann of Inter Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.
27.
Adams RJ, Smart P, Huff AS. Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. Int J Manag Rev. 2017;19(4):432–54. 
28.
Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Harden A, Harris J, et al. Chapter 21: Qualitative evidence. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page K, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane; 2022. Available from https://​www.​training.​cochrane.​org/​handbook/​current/​chapter-21. Accessed 8 July 2023.
29.
Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Trico A, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020. Available from https://​synthesismanual.​jbi.​global.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​46658/​JBIMES-20-12. Accessed 8 July 2023.
30.
31.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53. 
33.
Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2018.
34.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J of surg 2021;88:105906.
35.
Bajaj K, Madad SS, Birnbaum A, Pohlman J, Cruz JR, Walker K, et al. Challenges to Implementation of an Incognito Embedded Patient Simulation Program to Improve System-Wide Public Health Threat Preparedness. Int J Women’s Health Care. 2017;2(2):1–4.
36.
Bhattacharya A, Nagar R, Jenness J, Munson SA, Kientz JA. Designing asynchronous remote support for behavioral activation in teenagers with depression: Formative study. JMIR Form Res. 2021;5(7):e20969.
37.
Demiris G, Lin SY, Turner AM. The role of personal health information management in promoting patient safety in the home: A qualitative analysis. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;264:1159–63.
38.
Dixon S, Frost L, Feder G, Ziebland S, Pope C. Challenges of safeguarding via remote consulting during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study. Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72(716):e199–208.
39.
D’Onofrio G, Fiorini L, Hoshino H, Matsumori A, Okabe Y, Tsukamoto M, et al. Assistive robots for socialization in elderly people: results pertaining to the needs of the users. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019;31(9):1313–29.
40.
Donovan LM, Mog AC, Blanchard KN, Magid KH, Syed AS, Kelley LR, et al. Patient experiences with telehealth in sleep medicine: A qualitative evaluation. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(8):1645–51. 
41.
Hylén M, Nilsson S, Kristensson-Hallström I, Kristjánsdóttir G, Stenström P, Vilhjálmsson R. Access to health care perceived by parents caring for their child at home supported by eHealth—a directed approach introducing aperture. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1008.
42.
James S, Ashley C, Williams A, Desborough J, McInnes S, Calma K, et al. Experiences of Australian primary healthcare nurses in using telehealth during COVID-19: A qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e049095.
43.
Johannessen TB. Patient safety and feeling of safety when telecare is used among home-dwelling older adults. A qualitative study. 2021.
44.
Karlsen C, Moe CE, Haraldstad K, Thygesen E. Caring by telecare? A hermeneutic study of experiences among older adults and their family caregivers. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(7-8):1300–13.
45.
Lounsbury O, Roberts L, Goodman JR, Batey P, Naar L, Flott KM, et al. Opening a ’can of worms’ to explore the public’s hopes and fears about health care data sharing: Qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(2):e22744.
46.
Lynch J, Hughes G, Papoutsi C, Wherton J, A’Court C. “It’s no good but at least I’ve always got it round my neck”: A postphenomenological analysis of reassurance in assistive technology use by older people. Soc Sci Med. 2022;292:114553.
47.
Maier CA, Riger D, Morgan-Sowada H. “It’s splendid once you grow into it:” Client experiences of relational teletherapy in the era of COVID-19. J Marital Fam Ther. 2021;47(2):304–19.
48.
Malmgren Fänge A, Carlsson G, Chiatti C, Lethin C. Using sensor-based technology for safety and independence – the experiences of people with dementia and their families. Scand J Caring Sci. 2019;34(3):648–57.
49.
Winberg C, Kylberg M, Pettersson C, Harnett T, Hedvall PO, Mattsson T, et al. Feeling controlled or being in control? Apps for self-management among older people with neurological disability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(6):603–8.
50.
Doorley JD, Volgenau KM, Kelso KC, Kashdan TB, Shackman AJ. Do people with elevated social anxiety respond differently to digital and face-to-face communications? Two daily diary studies with null effects. J Affect Disord. 2020;276:859–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Hughes AM, Sonesh SC, Mason RE, Gregory ME, Marttos A, Schulman CI, et al. Trauma, Teams, and Telemedicine: Evaluating Telemedicine and Teamwork in a Mass Casualty Simulation. Mil Med. 2021;186(7-8):e811–8.
52.
Lang C, Voigt K, Neumann R, Bergmann A, Holthoff-Detto V. Adherence and acceptance of a home-based telemonitoring application used by multi-morbid patients aged 65 years and older. J Telemed Telecare. 2022;28(1):37–51.
53.
Ninatti L, Piergiovanni L. Digital Transformation of the Treatment of Eating Disorders: Matching Digital Technologies and Professionals’ Psychological Determinants. 2019.
54.
Rogerson L, Burr J, Tyson S. The feasibility and acceptability of smart home technology using the Howz system for people with stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;15(2):148–52.
55.
Kupfer A, Mayer M. Digitalisierung der Beratung. Onlineberatung für Kinder und Jugendliche und die Frage nach Möglichkeiten des Blended Counseling in der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe. Soziale Passagen. 2019;11(2):243–65.
56.
Salvador Vergès À, Cusí Sánchez MV, Bossio Grigera P, Fàbrega Agulló C, Da Gomes Costa F, Serra Trullas A, et al. Determinants in Stakeholder Opinions about Telemedicine in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review. Telemed e-Health. 2022;28(7):932–41.
57.
van Olmen J. The Promise of Digital Self-Management: A Reflection about the Effects of Patient-Targeted e-Health Tools on Self-Management and Wellbeing. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1360.
58.
59.
60.
Perry AF, Federico F, Huebner J. Telemedicine: Ensuring Safe, Equitable, Person-Centered Virtual Care. IHI White Paper. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2021. Available from https://​www.​ihi.​org.
61.
van Hoof J, Dikken J, van Staalduinen WH, van der Pas S, van den Hoven RFM, Hulsebosch-Janssen LMT. Towards a Better Understanding of the Sense of Safety and Security of Community-Dwelling Older Adults. The Case of the Age-Friendly City of The Hague. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(7):3960. 
62.
Zhou S, Ni Z, Ogihara A, Wang X. Behavioral Patterns of Supply and Demand Sides of Health Services for the Elderly in Sustainable Digital Transformation: A Mixed Methods Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(13):8221.
63.
Pfadenhauer LM. Conceptualizing Context and Intervention as a System in Implementation Science: Learning From Complexity Theory Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-country Analysis.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(8):1570–3.
64.
Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Lengnick-Hall R, Buchanan G, et al. The mechanics of implementation strategies and measures: advancing the study of implementation mechanisms. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3(1):114.
65.
Raimo N, De Turi I, Albergo F, Vitolla F. The drivers of the digital transformation in the healthcare industry: An empirical analysis in Italian hospitals. Technovation. 2023;121:102558. 
Metadata
Title
Feeling safe in the context of digitalization in healthcare: a scoping review
Authors
Peter Minartz
Christine Maria Aumann
Carmen Vondeberg
Silke Kuske
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Telemedicine
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02465-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Systematic Reviews 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Role of hydroxyurea therapy in the prevention of organ damage in sickle cell disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Letter

Observational studies provide insufficient data for a reliable meta-analysis: a call to revise the current guidelines

Research

Does arthroscopic or open washout in native knee septic arthritis result in superior post-operative function? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

Correction

Correction: Effects of chronic physical exercise on executive functions and episodic memory in clinical and healthy older adult populations: a systematic review and meta‑analysis protocol

Research

Assessing the effects of population-level political, economic and social exposures, interventions and policies on inclusive economy outcomes for health equity in high-income countries: a systematic review of reviews

Research

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review