Accessibility settings

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Formative Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions (3424) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (168) Mobile Health in Psychiatry (553) Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (4189) Digital Mental Health Interventions, e-Mental Health and Cyberpsychology (2250) Telehealth and Telemonitoring (2189)

Published on in Vol 10 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/75461, first published .
Mental Health Needs of Families of Patients in Intensive Care Units and the Role of Mobile Health: Survey Study

Mental Health Needs of Families of Patients in Intensive Care Units and the Role of Mobile Health: Survey Study

Mental Health Needs of Families of Patients in Intensive Care Units and the Role of Mobile Health: Survey Study

Authors of this article:

Anthony Faiola1 Author Orcid Image ;   Saira Soroya2 Author Orcid Image ;   Zhonglin Hao3 Author Orcid Image ;   Reinhold Munker4 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (2) Metrics

    Original Paper

    1Department of Population Health, College of Nursing, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States

    2College of Information and Library Science, University of Southern Connecticut State University, Hartford, CT, United States

    3College of Medicine, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States

    4Division of Hematology, College of Medicine, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States

    Corresponding Author:

    Anthony Faiola, PhD

    Department of Population Health

    College of Nursing

    University of Cincinnati

    3114 Vine St.

    Cincinnati, OH, 45220

    United States

    Phone: 1 558 5614

    Email: anthony.faiola@uc.edu


    Background: The experiences of patients with COVID-19 and their families manifested the most devastating effects of family separation since the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic and, with it, a call for solutions to patient isolation and its effect on family mental health.

    Objective: This study examined the recent experiences of families of critical care (intensive care unit; ICU) patients related to anxiety and depression (AD), satisfaction with clinician-family communication, and counseling from mental health and social services. This study explored correlations between these factors and family interest in mobile health (mHealth) designed to improve information flow and communication from patient bedside to remote families.

    Methods: Using a 36-question quantitative survey, we collected 97 responses over 6 months. We selected participants by using a convenience sampling strategy. To analyze data, we applied descriptive and inferential statistics. Participants represented a spectrum of ages, relationships to patients, and races (n=78, 80% White; n=17, 18% Black; n=2, 2% other races). Approximately 17% (n=16) of the patients were admitted for cancer, 13% (n=13) were admitted for COVID-19, and 21% (n=20) were admitted for other conditions.

    Results: The mean score for remote families’ satisfaction with patient health updates from the bedside and mental health services was 2.94 (SD 1.31), whereas that for phone communication was lower on average. The mean scores of family AD levels were elevated, and levels were higher among family members during the ICU stay than after discharge. These findings confirmed evidence of a negative correlation between transportation difficulties and satisfaction with the frequency of information provided (r=−0.284; P=.005), suggesting that, with the increase in transportation challenges, families become less satisfied with the frequency of patient health information. Family members expressed strong interest in using mHealth information and communication services (mean 8.34, SD 1.98) and having easy access to social workers to manage AD (mean 8.29, SD 2.03). Families experiencing higher levels of anxiety during patients’ ICU stays had significantly greater interest in the use of an mHealth app that would provide direct access to social workers (r=0.326; P<.001), in using an mHealth videoconferencing app (r=0.319; P=.002), and in overall mHealth app use (r=0.322; P<.001).

    Conclusions: Family members experienced high levels of AD during patient ICU admission, as well as after discharge even though their mental health challenges were reduced. Families were highly dissatisfied with the frequency of health updates, with lower satisfaction reported among those who faced difficulties arranging transportation or lived further from the hospital. Modest but statistically significant correlations were observed between family members’ reported mental health status during ICU stays and an interest in an mHealth app that could provide access to real-time bedside information, facilitate communication with bedside nurses, and support connections with social workers.

    JMIR Form Res 2026;10:e75461

    doi:10.2196/75461

    Keywords

    mental health; intensive care unit; ICU; communication; mobile health; COVID-19; health equity; health technology; digital tools; eHealth 


    The experiences of patients with COVID-19 and their families in the intensive care unit (ICU) brought to the fore the most devastating effects of family (or caregiver) separation since the 1918 H1N1 Spanish influenza pandemic [1]. Today, even under the best of conditions, ICU patients and their families often experience uncertainty and heightened levels of confusion that inevitably produce increased psychological burden [2]. The ICU is a critical care facility dedicated to patients who need constant specialized bedside care [3], a situation in which the family members of patients develop high levels of anxiety and depression (AD).

    Multiple studies show that this is due in part to a lack of timely medical updates and staff communication, especially if family members live in locations far from the point of care [4-6]. In particular, studies demonstrate that family members are more likely to develop anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [7-9], and disruptions to family relationships [10,11] because of challenges surrounding less than optimal information flow from bedside to family members [12].

    Other key factors impacting the mental health of family members of ICU patients include isolation from the patient [13-20], socioeconomic inequalities [21-23], and increased transportation needs due to interhospital transfers [24-26]. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic [27], families encountered the suspension of ICU visitation rights and, as a result, experienced a high prevalence and severity of acute stress disorder even 3 months after patient discharge [8]. Researchers have argued that “during times of healthcare crises and the restriction of the physical presence of families, family support is more, not less, important” [28,29]. As a result, there is a need for increased communication between the ICU care team and family members, adopting “family-centered tools” that address restrictions on family access to patient health updates and communication [30-33].

    Such tools might include family-centered digital solutions that provide relevant and easily accessible information from the bedside for family members. Research suggests that convenient ways to support families in their understanding of the real-time health status of patients might include mobile apps (mobile health; mHealth). Such interventional support would be specifically designed to safely and securely communicate patient health and wellness information to families, providing them with the greatest benefit to their mental health [34-36].

    Researchers further argue that health care providers should explore mHealth as part of standardized care for patient families [37]. To address these challenges, digital communication interventions are one possible solution [38,39] to reduce the psychological burden on family members [40,41] with a loved one in the ICU. In support of this view, it is well documented in prior studies that particular mHealth apps have the potential to significantly reduce AD. For example, in one systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers observed 15 studies that reported on the positive effects of mHealth interventions on AD symptoms in patients with cancer, with the mHealth intervention group demonstrating a statistically significant improvement in AD compared to the control groups. The researchers concluded that their meta-analysis demonstrated the potential of mHealth interventions to significantly improve anxiety, depression, and quality of life in patients with cancer [42].

    A second systematic review addressing the effects of mHealth, web-based, or virtual reality platforms on depression, anxiety, and enhancement of psychological well-being among college students found that the vast majority of studies reported that digital interventions were either effective or partially effective in producing beneficial changes in the main psychological outcome among students. The effectiveness of the intervention did not appear to substantially vary by type of digital mental health technology used, indicating that all held the potential for improving mental health on college campuses [43].

    Another scoping study of 8 studies demonstrated the positive effect of mHealth to reduce mental health burdens among family members. The results showed decreased depression scores, with strong satisfaction with the accessibility and flexibility of mHealth combined with peer support features [44].

    These well-documented studies suggest that mHealth has the potential to support higher patient and family satisfaction and the lowering of family member AD [45]. To this end, we designed this study to provide additional insight into the needs of families of critical care patients. Hence, the broad objective of this study was to assess to what degree increased access to ICU patient health information via mHealth or other forms of digital communication may serve as a strategic intervention to reduce AD among patients’ family members.

    We present the current experiences of family members of ICU patients; gauged their interest in alternative communication solutions that would help lower their experiences of AD; and explored any associations among family interests in increased communication, family AD, and family satisfaction with current communication systems within the health care system.

    This study was designed to answer the following 5 specific research questions (RQs):

    • RQ 1: to what extent are family members satisfied with patient health information communicated by ICU medical staff?
    • RQ 2: what is the prevalence of AD among family members during the patients’ stay in the ICU and after discharge?
    • RQ 3: is there any relationship between the difficulty in arranging transport to and from the hospital and family members’ level of satisfaction with the frequency of communication (RQ 3a) and AD (RQ 3b)?
    • RQ 4: how interested are families in the use of a mobile app that sends patient health updates and allows for communication with nurses, social workers, and/or mental health counselors via SMS text message and/or video about the patients’ health status?
    • RQ 5: is there a correlation between family members’ AD and their satisfaction with current communication with the critical care team?

    Study Design

    We collected quantitative data using a 36-question survey divided into six categories: (1) demographics (multiple choice; questions 1-2); (2) patient and family background, such as location and medical history (multiple choice; questions 6-15); (3) degree of AD and general mental health (sliding scale; questions 16-23); (4) quality and quantity of health care services and communication (sliding scale; questions 24-30); (5) degree of health inequity experienced while in the hospital (sliding scale; questions 31-33); and (6) degree of interest in the use of mHealth to facilitate better communication with the clinical staff (sliding scale; questions 34-36).

    The Family Inpatient Communication Survey [46,47] and senior technology acceptance model survey [48], along with other published papers addressing family-centered care of patients [20,49-51], provided guidance in the development of our research instrument. After institutional review board approval, we prepared the questionnaire in the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University) survey platform. The overall reliability of the scales used was assessed using the Cronbach α, yielding a coefficient of 0.758, indicating acceptable internal consistency.

    All self-reported psychological constructs within the survey, such as anxiety, depression, satisfaction, and mental health, were left to each participant’s interpretation based on their subjective experience of the terms. For example, one question asks the following: “How would you rate your anxiety after your family member was in the ICU?” Next to the question is a sliding scale with no numbers, ranging from “no anxiety” on the left to “highly anxious” on the right. Such terms were not operationalized or linked to existing standardized psychometric tools such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale or the Beck Anxiety Inventory [52].

    Recruitment

    For participant enrollment, we posted our survey aims and invitation with a URL on 16 social networking websites and Facebook community groups related to critical care and family-centered care. We also displayed posters at selected clinical sites on the University of Kentucky medical campus (Lexington, Kentucky) for further recruitment. Individuals were eligible to participate if they were (1) adults (aged ≥18 years) and (2) self-identified family members of critical care patients (in cardiac, pediatric, COVID-19, and cancer ICUs) admitted within the previous 2 years. Data collection lasted 6 months.

    Sample Size

    This research project was originally designed as a proof-of-concept study, where a limited sample would be sufficient to achieve our intended goals. Moreover, we experienced extraordinary challenges in obtaining responses. As such, we set the sample size at 100 using a convenience sampling method for participant recruitment. A post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed using G*Power (version 3.1). With a sample size of 100, an α level of .05, and statistical power set at 80%, the analysis demonstrated sufficient capacity to detect a medium effect size of r=0.28 (2 tailed). This indicates that the study was appropriately powered to identify moderate or stronger associations, aligning with the objectives of this pilot investigation. We received 97 responses in the end.

    Data Analysis

    We analyzed the data using the open-source statistical software Jamovi (version 2.7.9) [53]. Jamovi is a statistical software built on R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Standard significance levels were used throughout the analysis, with α=.05 as the threshold for statistical significance unless otherwise specified. To analyze the data, first, we examined the extent and pattern of missingness across variables. Jamovi excludes any row (case) that has missing data for one or more variables used in the analysis. The analysis was set to Jamovi’s handling of missing data as the default. In addition to reporting descriptive statistics (eg, means, SDs, and frequencies), we conducted inferential statistical analyses to explore relationships and differences among variables.

    We applied a paired-sample 2-tailed t test to identify differences in AD between ICU admission and postdischarge. Furthermore, correlation analyses were conducted to determine the strength and direction of relationships among transportation difficulties, satisfaction with the frequency of patient updates, mental health indicators (reported AD status), and family interest in mHealth solutions. However, because the data did not meet the assumptions of normality, nonparametric tests were used to assess differences (Wilcoxon W) and relationships (Spearman ρ) among variables. Further analysis details are provided in the Results section.

    Ethical Considerations

    This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board (approval 83549) at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States, in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The participant population was from both within and outside the University of Kentucky. Outside populations were recruited through REDCap advertising networks and through the list of websites that specialize in participant recruitment. Researchers obtained an institutional review board waiver of documentation for the informed consent process. All participation was on a voluntary basis, with no compensation offered. Research presented no more than minimal risk to the participant because it involved only survey and interview questions and obtaining consent would increase the risk related to confidentiality based on the consent document being the only link to any personal health information.


    Demographics

    We used a nonprobability sampling technique, necessitating the collection of demographic information from family member participants. Patients spanned various age groups, with a notable concentration of those aged ≥31 years. The 97 individuals who responded to the survey represented a spectrum of ages, races, ICU patient disease types, and relationships to patients. The data showed a balance of both male and female patients. Race identification among family members was 80% (n=78) White, 18% (n=17) Black, and 2% (n=2) other races.

    Regarding medical reasons for patient admission to the ICU, the percentage breakdown of the sample included cancer (n=16, 17%) and COVID-19 (n=13, 13%) as the most frequent, followed by pneumonia or infections (n=9, 9%), myocarditis (n=7, 7%), stroke (n=7, 7%), sepsis (n=7, 7%), accidents or injuries (falls, burns, cuts, or gunshot wounds; n=7, 7%), overdose or substance abuse (n=6, 6%), diabetes (n=3, 3%), meningitis (n=2, 2%), and other conditions (n=20, 21%). The largest group of patient relatives who spent time at the bedside were parents or guardians (n=34, 35%), followed by spouses (n=14, 14%), grandparents (n=12, 12%), and other relatives (n=37, 39%).

    Normality of Data

    We analyzed the normality of the data by using skewness and kurtosis tests for all dependent variables. Table 1 shows how the data were normally distributed. Values were within the threshold range for both skewness (–1 to +1) and kurtosis (–3 to +3) [54]. We supplemented the skewness and kurtosis statistics with formal normality tests, specifically the Shapiro-Wilk test, which is more appropriate for small to moderate sample sizes. To further support our assessment, we generated Q-Q plots for the main continuous variables used in parametric analyses. These plots were examined to identify deviations from normality that may not be evident in statistical tests alone. The Shapiro-Wilk test results and Q-Q plots showed deviation from normality; therefore, nonparametric tests were applied for inferential statistics. Figures 1-4 provide the Q-Q plots illustrating the data.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Q-Q plots of anxiety (A) and depression (B) during the patients’ stay.
    ‎
    Figure 2. Q-Q plots of satisfaction with the frequency of communication of medical information via telephone (A) and verbally (B) while families are in the intensive care unit.
    ‎
    Figure 3. Q-Q plots of general interest in the use of mobile health (mHealth; A), an mHealth videoconferencing app (B), and an mHealth feature that connects family members with a social worker (C).
    ‎
    Figure 4. Q-Q plots of anxiety (A) and depression (B) after discharge.
    Table 1. Data normality.

    		Descriptive statisticsSkewness (SE)Kurtosis (SE)Shapiro-Wilk test

    		Participants (n)Score (1-10), mean (SD)

    		Wilcoxon WP value
    Depression during the patients’ stay in the ICUa957.22 (2.30)−0.84 (0.24)0.31 (0.49)0.91<.001
    Anxiety during the patients’ stay in the ICU957.53 (2.21)−0.93 (0.24)0.55 (0.49)0.89<.001
    Depression after the patients’ ICU discharge956.32 (2.60)−0.18 (0.24)−0.92 (0.49)0.94<.001
    Anxiety after the patients’ discharge from the ICU956.68 (2.38)−0.48 (0.24)−0.55 (0.49)0.93<.001
    Satisfaction with the frequency of telephone medical information communication955.98 (2.72)−0.17 (0.24)−0.96 (0.49)0.94<.001
    Satisfaction with the frequency of medical information communication956.62 (2.70)−0.53 (0.24)−0.77 (0.49)0.92<.001
    Overall mHealthb app interest958.34 (1.98)−1.60 (0.24)3.07 (0.49)0.79<.001
    Interest in mHealth videoconferencing app968.32 (2.25)−1.84 (0.24)3.07 (0.48)0.74<.001
    Interest in mHealth app to connect with social workers968.29 (2.02)−1.50 (0.24)2.32 (0.48)0.81<.001

    aICU: intensive care unit.

    bmHealth: mobile health.

    RQ 1 Results

    RQ 1 addresses the degree to which family members were satisfied with available health information and communication provided by ICU clinical staff. The mean score of 2.94 (SD 1.31) on a scale from 1 to 6 shows that, on average, family members received updates once every 7 to 12 hours when away from the hospital (Table 2). Regarding the satisfaction level with the overall frequency of communication with the patients’ family members, we observed a mean score of nearly 7 on average (mean 6.62, SD 2.70) on a scale from 1 to 10. Conversely, phone communication was lower on average. Furthermore, satisfaction with the mental health services provided by the hospital for family members was at a midpoint on a scale from 1 to 10 on average (mean 4.97, SD 2.90). Mental health services as defined in the survey included mental health counseling, social services, and clinical psychologists available to family members on request (Table 2).

    Table 2. Scores for frequency of patient information communicated and satisfaction with the available patient information communicated, combined with the mental health services provided to the patients’ family members.
    Mental health servicesScore, mean (SD)
    Frequency of patient information communicated (n=97)a

    		“How often were you updated by the ICU staff regarding your loved one (family member) health status when you were away from the hospital?”2.94 (1.31)
    Satisfaction with the available patient information communicated, combined with the mental health services provided to the patients’ family members (n=95)b

    		“How satisfied were you with the frequency of medical information being shared by the ICU nurses or doctors about your family member?”6.62 (2.70)

    		“How satisfied were you with the frequency of phone communication the nurses had with your family while your family member was in the ICU?”5.98 (2.72)

    		“Rate your satisfaction with the mental health services available to your family, when your family member was in the ICU, e.g., mental health counseling, social services, clinical psychologists?”4.97 (2.90)

    aScale: 1=“never,” 2=“once every 1-6 hours,” 3=“once every 7-12 hours,” 4=“once every 13-24 hours,” 5=“once every 25-48 hours,” and 6=“after more than 48 hours.”

    bScale: 1=“not satisfied”; 10=“highly satisfied.”

    RQ 2 Results

    RQ 2 addresses the level of AD among family members while their loved ones were in the ICU, as well as after discharge. Table 3 shows that the mean scores for AD were elevated (scale from 1-10). Anxiety was consistently higher than depression in both periods (Table 3). Levels of AD were higher among family members during the ICU stay than after discharge. To determine whether this difference was statistically significant, we conducted a paired-sample t test using the Wilcoxon W. The results confirmed a significant difference between AD levels of family members during the ICU stay and after discharge (Table 4).

    Table 3. Mental health status of the family members during admission of their loved ones to the intensive care unit and after discharge.

    		During admission, mean (SD)aAfter discharge, mean (SD)a
    Depression level7.22 (2.30)6.32 (2.60)
    Anxiety level7.53 (2.21)6.68 (2.38)

    aScale: 1=low; 10=high.

    Table 4. Comparison of anxiety and depression levels among family members during the intensive care unit stay and after patient dischargea.

    		Wilcoxon WP valueEffect size—rank biserial correlation
    Anxiety during admission and after discharge1479b<.0010.52
    Depression during admission and after discharge1844c.0010.44

    aThe alternative hypothesis states that the mean of measure 1 differs from the mean of measure 2 (ie, there is a nonzero difference between the 2 measurements).

    b33 pairs of values were tied.

    c24 pairs of values were tied.

    RQ 3 Results

    Prior research has established that there is difficulty in arranging transportation for family members to ICU clinical sites, which impacts their satisfaction level and frequency of receiving patient information, phone communication, and mental health services [55].

    For RQ 3, we examined the correlation between difficulty arranging transportation and satisfaction with the frequency of shared information. Our findings confirmed evidence of a negative relationship between transportation difficulties and satisfaction with the frequency of information provided (r=−0.284; P=.005). This suggests that, as transportation challenges increase, families become less satisfied with the frequency of patient health information. The lack of frequent visits due to transportation issues may also suggest a heightening of AD and, subsequently, a stronger desire for more frequent updates to compensate for family members’ inability to regularly visit the ICU.

    RQ 3b examined the correlation between difficulty in arranging transportation and AD. As performing multiple correlation analyses increases the risk of type I error, the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure was applied to control the false discovery rate at α=.05. As all raw P values were identical and very small (P=.001), the Benjamini-Hochberg–adjusted P values were uniformly .002, which is well below the threshold. Therefore, all tests remained significant after false discovery rate correction, indicating strong evidence against the null hypotheses (Multimedia Appendix 1).

    Unlike the correlation observed with satisfaction regarding communication of patient information, we found no significant correlation between transportation difficulties and anxiety (P=.15) and depression during the patients’ ICU stay (P=.71). However, there was a positive correlation between anxiety levels and depression levels during the patients’ ICU stay (r=0.550; P=.001). Additionally, AD levels experienced during the ICU stay were significantly and positively correlated with AD levels after patient discharge (Table 5).

    Table 5. Correlations among family members’ anxiety and depression during patients’ intensive care unit (ICU) stay and after patient discharge.

    		Depression during the patients’ stay in the ICUAnxiety during the patients’ stay in the ICUDepression after the patients’ discharge from the ICUAnxiety after the patients’ discharge from the ICU
    Depression during the patients’ stay in the ICU

    		r10.5500.4680.417

    		P value—a<.001<.001<.001
    Anxiety during the patients’ stay in the ICU

    		r0.55010.5280.528

    		P value<.001—<.001<.001
    Depression after the patients’ discharge from the ICU

    		r0.4680.52810.692

    		P value<.001<.001—<.001
    Anxiety after the patients’ discharge from the ICU

    		r0.4170.5280.6921

    		P value<.001<.001<.001—

    aNot applicable.

    RQ 4 Results

    Regarding RQ 4, we surveyed family members about their interest in new forms of mobile technology designed to improve information flow and communication from the ICU bedside to the family’s location regarding their loved ones’ health status. Table 6 presents data indicating that family members expressed strong interest in using such a service (mean 8.34, SD 1.98), connecting with bedside nurses via SMS text message and videoconferencing (mean 8.32, SD 2.25), and having easy access to social workers to help manage their AD (mean 8.29, SD 2.03; 1=least interest; 10=high interest).

    Table 6. Interest in patient information communicated using a new mobile health appa.

    		Participants (n)Score, mean (SD)
    “How interested would you be in a mobile app that provides better information and communication for families by sending regular patient health and wellness updates, while their loved one is in a critical care facility?”958.34 (1.98)
    “How interested would you be in a communication mobile app that gives families the ability to text or videoconference with the bedside nurse, while their loved one is in the ICU or another in-patient facility?”968.32 (2.25)
    “How much would you be interested in a communication mobile app that allows families the ability to connect directly to a social worker or mental health counselor, while their loved one is in the ICU or another in-patient facility?”968.29 (2.02)

    aScale: 1=least interest; 10=high interest.

    RQ 5 Results

    RQ 5 explored the correlation among satisfaction with communicated patient information, AD experienced by family members, and interest in using an mHealth app. As performing multiple correlation analyses increases the risk of type I error, we applied the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction (α=.05) to adjust for multiple comparisons. Adjusted P values (q values) are reported, and correlations with q<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Thus, we found it reliable to proceed with a multiple correlation analysis (Multimedia Appendix 2).

    Spearman ρ outcomes revealed significant positive correlations among these variables (P<.05; Table 7). We discovered that families experienced higher levels of anxiety during patients’ ICU stays and had significantly greater interest in the use of a mobile app that would provide direct access to social workers (r=0.326; P<.001), in using an mHealth videoconferencing app (r=0.319; P=.002), and in overall mHealth app use (r=0.322; P=.001). We also observed that family members who experienced higher levels of depression during ICU stays had significantly greater interest in SMS text message and videoconferencing communication with the bedside nurse (r=0.297; P=.003) and an app to connect with social workers (r=0.214; P=.04). Figure 5 provides a graphic review of the findings.

    ‎
    Figure 5. Correlation among 3 variable groups. ICU: intensive care unit; mHealth: mobile health. *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<.001.
    Table 7. Correlation matrix of family members’ anxiety and depression during patients’ intensive care unit (ICU) stay, satisfaction with frequency of medical information communication, and interest in mobile health (mHealth) apps (n=93).

    		Anxiety during the patients’ stay in the ICUDepression during the patients’ stay in the ICUInterest in app to connect with social workersInterest in SMS text messaging or videoconferencing app communicationOverall mHealth app interestSatisfaction with the frequency of telephone medical information communicationSatisfaction with the frequency of medical information communication
    Anxiety during the patients’ stay in the ICU

    		r10.550a0.326b0.319b0.322b0.0240.064

    		P value—<.001.001.002.001.82.54
    Depression during the patients’ stay in the ICU

    		r0.550a10.214c0.297b0.196−0.0580.107

    		P value<.001—.04.003.06.58.30
    Interest in app to connect with social workers

    		r0.326b0.214c10.813a0.814a0.221c0.280b

    		P value.001.04—<.001<.001.03.006
    Interest in SMS text messaging or videoconferencing appcommunication

    		r0.319b0.297b0.813a10.775a0.219c0.299b

    		P value.002.003<.001—<.001.03.003
    Overall mHealth app interest

    		r0.322b0.1960.814a0.775a10.1740.288b

    		P value.001.06<.001<.001—.09.005
    Satisfaction with the frequency of telephone medical information communication

    		r0.024−0.0580.221c0.219c0.17410.710a

    		P value.82.578.03.03.09—<.001
    Satisfaction with the frequency of medical information communication

    		r0.0640.1070.280b0.299b0.288b0.710a1

    		P value.54.30.006.003.005<.001—

    aP<.001.

    bP<.01.

    cP<.05.

    Similarly, we observed that satisfaction with phone communication from clinicians was positively correlated with direct access to social workers through mHealth (r=0.221; P=.03), use of an mHealth videoconferencing app (r=0.219; P=.03), and satisfaction with the frequency of medical information shared by the staff (r=0.710; P<.001).

    We further confirmed that participants’ interest in an mHealth videoconferencing app was significantly and positively correlated with overall mHealth app interest (r=0.775; P<.001). Interest in mHealth to connect with social workers was significantly and positively correlated with interest in an mHealth videoconferencing app (r=0.813; P<.001) and overall mHealth app use (r=0.814; P=.001). However, there was no correlation between satisfaction with health information communicated and AD.

    Finally, our results indicate a positive correlation between satisfaction with the frequency of health information received and satisfaction with phone communication from medical staff (r=0.710; P<.001). The results further indicate that family members who were more satisfied with the frequency of communication were more interested in using an mHealth videoconferencing app for frequent updates (r=0.299; P=.003), using an app to connect with social workers (r=0.280; P=.006), and using an mHealth app for updates about their family members (r=0.288; P=.005).


    Principal Findings

    Our findings confirm that family members experienced high levels of AD both during their loved ones’ ICU stay and after discharge. Notably, AD levels were more pronounced while patients were in the ICU compared to after discharge. This heightened stress was especially evident during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many ICU patients died without a family member present, leading to increased stress levels among relatives [56]. Although AD can be significant during an ICU stay, the persistence of these issues after discharge, as reported in this study, raises serious concerns. This finding is further confirmed by another recent study reporting that family members exhibited symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder for up to a year after their loved ones were discharged from the ICU [57].

    We emphasize COVID-19 as a primary context for the issues raised due to the recent global impact it had on millions of families. While cancer as a reason for admission to the ICU was noted in 17% (n=16) of cases (COVID-19 constituting n=13, 13% of cases), there are over 200 types of cancer, with the National Cancer Institute identifying breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and melanoma as the most common. Due to the noncommunicable nature of these diseases, families do not experience the same types of mental health issues because they are often not isolated from their loved ones. Conversely, COVID-19, within a short period, brought to the fore the severe challenges of family-clinician communication and its impact on the mental health of families.

    Our study indicated a maximum mean satisfaction level of only 6.62 (SD 2.70) on a scale from 1 to 10, reflecting a generally low level of satisfaction among family members regarding real-time communication. Difficulties in arranging transportation significantly affected their dissatisfaction with the frequency of updates. This difficulty may be attributed to the challenges of traveling to hospitals from remote areas. This finding aligns with those of previous research that suggests that the psychosocial status of family members can influence their satisfaction with communication.

    Satisfaction with existing communication between clinical staff and family members of ICU patients led participants to express interest in a digital solution that could more readily provide real-time bedside health updates, as well as the ability to text and conduct videoconferences. This need was also highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when visitation restrictions underscored the necessity of having alternative means of connecting family members with their loved ones. Virtual visitation via videoconferencing has been proposed as a solution, addressing the challenges faced by family members who struggled with the distance and time constraints associated with in-person visits [56,58].

    Additionally, our study found that family members were not satisfied with the adequacy and availability of mental health counseling and social services provided by hospitals. This dissatisfaction further underscores an interest from families in an mHealth solution that facilitates virtual communication with social workers or mental health counseling, particularly for families of critical care patients.

    In summary, our findings suggest that families were highly dissatisfied with the frequency of health updates provided by clinical staff, with lower satisfaction reported among those who faced difficulties arranging transportation or lived further from the hospital. Family members experienced high levels of AD during their loved ones’ ICU admission as well as after discharge even though their mental health challenges were reduced.

    In this study, modest but statistically significant correlations were observed between family members’ reported mental health status (AD) during the patients’ ICU stay and their interest in using an mHealth app. A similar association was found between participants’ satisfaction with medical communication and their interest in a mobile app. Additionally, difficulty arranging transportation was negatively correlated with family members’ satisfaction with the frequency of medical information sharing. Overall, family members expressed interest in a digital tool that could provide access to real-time bedside information, facilitate communication with bedside nurses, and support connections with social workers.

    It is important to note that these findings are based on a nonrandom sample and reflect moderate correlations; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution. Rather than indicating strong evidence of effectiveness, the results suggest potential associations that warrant further investigation. Nonetheless, when considered alongside prior research emphasizing the value of structured interprofessional frameworks in hospital and ICU settings—particularly those using standardized digital tools and empathic communication strategies [59]—the findings highlight directions for future work.

    Moreover, prior studies suggest that interventions aimed at mitigating the negative psychological impacts of hospitalization may be beneficial when initiated early during ICU admission. Remote or technology-mediated approaches may improve reach and engagement, whereas individuals with greater needs may benefit from longer or in-person interventions to ensure adequate support and reduce the risk of discontinuation [60].

    Building on these insights, we propose that future research explore the development and evaluation of an mHealth intervention designed to support communication between family members and ICU bedside staff. Such an app could offer timely clinical updates and secure messaging or video communication within a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant platform. Importantly, rather than replicating the limited access often associated with existing mobile electronic medical record services, a family-centered design could acknowledge the central role of family members in patient recovery. However, rigorous studies using randomized designs are needed to assess feasibility, effectiveness, and ethical considerations before such interventions can be recommended for widespread implementation.

    Limitations of the Study

    This study has several important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, our self-selecting sampling strategy may have introduced bias, potentially overrepresenting family members who were more comfortable with technology and, thereby, inflating interest in mHealth apps. Second, the sample size was limited due to the uniqueness of the population studied and the sensitivity of the topic (ie, family members may have found it difficult to fill out the survey due to the need to revisit a prior family event that was psychologically painful). Third, mental health status (AD) was self-reported and was not assessed using standardized scales. Considering these limitations, the findings may be interpreted as exploratory and may not be generalizable to all ICU family populations. Nevertheless, this study offers valuable insights into this important issue and identifies directions for future research.

    Future Research

    In parallel with this study, we recently completed a quasi-experimental pilot study that investigated the feasibility, usability, and efficacy of a newly developed mHealth app to reduce the AD of family members of critical care patients with cancer, with a focus on those living in rural Kentucky. This study recruited family members of patients in the Markey Cancer Center, Blood & Marrow Transplant and Cellular Therapy Program, University of Kentucky. As such, our ongoing research includes further mHealth app design, development, and clinical testing of this intervention in both critical care and other long-term health facilities (eg, nursing homes). The aim of this translational research is to provide bedside support to family members living in remote locations throughout Kentucky and Ohio.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors appreciate the valuable suggestions from Dr Salman Bin Naeem during the idea development phase of this study. They also acknowledge 2 student researchers, Max Burch and Sheridan Schrader, for supporting the data collection process.

    Funding

    This study was not funded.

    Data Availability

    The datasets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Authors' Contributions

    AF and SS conceived and developed the survey and the original manuscript, whereas AF, SS, and ZH refined and enhanced the final manuscript, with ZH providing his insights and expertise in critical care services and patient and family support. AF provided internal funding for data collection and obtained institutional review board approval. AF and SS developed the survey instrument, whereas SS reviewed and enhanced the instrument. AF and SS participated in data collection with the support of 2 student research assistants. SS conducted the data analysis. All authors have reviewed and agreed to the final version of the manuscript for submission.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    P values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure: correlation between difficulty in arranging transportation and anxiety and depression.

    DOCX File , 16 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    P values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure: correlation among satisfaction with communicated patient information, anxiety and depression experienced by family members, and interest in using an mHealth app.

    DOCX File , 17 KB
    1. Patterson GE, McIntyre KM, Clough HE, Rushton J. Societal impacts of pandemics: comparing COVID-19 with history to focus our response. Front Public Health. 2021;9:630449. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Boehm LM, Jones AC, Selim AA, Virdun C, Garrard CF, Walden RL, et al. Delirium-related distress in the ICU: a qualitative meta-synthesis of patient and family perspectives and experiences. Int J Nurs Stud. Oct 2021;122:104030. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Khalafi A, Elahi N, Ahmadi F. Continuous care and patients' basic needs during weaning from mechanical ventilation: a qualitative study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. Dec 2016;37:37-45. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Gurbuz H, Demir N. Anxiety and depression symptoms of family members of intensive care unit patients: a prospective observational study and the lived experiences of the family members. Avicenna J Med. Apr 2023;13(2):89-96. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Lee LY, Lau YL. Immediate needs of adult family members of adult intensive care patients in Hong Kong. J Clin Nurs. Jul 2003;12(4):490-500. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Browning G, Warren NA. Unmet needs of family members in the medical intensive care waiting room. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2006;29(1):86-95. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Hoffmann M, Jeitziner MM, Riedl R, Mueller G, Peer A, Bachlechner A, et al. Effects of an online information tool on post-traumatic stress disorder in relatives of intensive care unit patients: a multicenter double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ICU-Families-Study). Intensive Care Med. Nov 2023;49(11):1317-1326. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Zante B, Erne K, Grossenbacher J, Camenisch SA, Schefold JC, Jeitziner MM. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in next of kin during suspension of ICU visits during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective observational study. BMC Psychiatry. Sep 29, 2021;21(1):477. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Scott P, Thomson P, Shepherd A. Families of patients in ICU: a scoping review of their needs and satisfaction with care. Nurs Open. Jul 2019;6(3):698-712. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Olabisi OI, Olorunfemi O, Bolaji A, Azeez FO, Olabisi TE, Azeez O. Depression, anxiety, stress and coping strategies among family members of patients admitted in intensive care unit in Nigeria. Int J Afr Nurs Sci. 2020;13:100223. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    11. van Sleeuwen D, van de Laar F, Geense W, van den Boogaard M, Zegers M. Health problems among family caregivers of former intensive care unit (ICU) patients: an interview study. BJGP Open. Oct 2020;4(4):bjgpopen20X101061. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Heyland DK, Rocker GM, Dodek PM, Kutsogiannis DJ, Konopad E, Cook DJ, et al. Family satisfaction with care in the intensive care unit: results of a multiple center study. Crit Care Med. Jul 2002;30(7):1413-1418. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Hochendoner SJ, Amass TH, Curtis JR, Witt P, Weng X, Toyobo O, et al. Voices from the pandemic: a qualitative study of family experiences and suggestions regarding the care of critically ill patients. Ann Am Thorac Soc. Apr 2022;19(4):614-624. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Liu V, Read JL, Scruth E, Cheng E. Visitation policies and practices in US ICUs. Crit Care. Apr 16, 2013;17(2):R71. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Garrouste-Orgeas M, Vinatier I, Tabah A, Misset B, Timsit JF. Reappraisal of visiting policies and procedures of patient's family information in 188 French ICUs: a report of the Outcomerea Research Group. Ann Intensive Care. Dec 2016;6(1):82. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Quenot JP, Ecarnot F, Meunier-Beillard N, Dargent A, Large A, Andreu P, et al. What are the ethical issues in relation to the role of the family in intensive care? Ann Transl Med. Dec 2017;5(Suppl 4):S40. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Digby R, Manias E, Haines KJ, Orosz J, Ihle J, Bucknall TK. Family experiences and perceptions of intensive care unit care and communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aust Crit Care. May 2023;36(3):350-360. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Fumis RR, Ranzani OT, Martins PS, Schettino G. Emotional disorders in pairs of patients and their family members during and after ICU stay. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e0115332. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Mitchell M, Chaboyer W, Burmeister E, Foster M. Positive effects of a nursing intervention on family-centered care in adult critical care. Am J Crit Care. Nov 2009;18(6):543-52; quiz 553. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Montauk TR, Kuhl EA. COVID-related family separation and trauma in the intensive care unit. Psychol Trauma. Aug 2020;12(S1):S96-S97. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Cross SH, Califf RM, Warraich HJ. Rural-urban disparity in mortality in the US from 1999 to 2019. JAMA. Jun 08, 2021;325(22):2312-2314. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Gaffney AW, Hawks L, White AC, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein D, Christiani DC, et al. Health care disparities across the urban-rural divide: a national study of individuals with COPD. J Rural Health. Jan 2022;38(1):207-216. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Garcia MC, Rossen LM, Bastian B, Faul M, Dowling NF, Thomas CC, et al. Potentially excess deaths from the five leading causes of death in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties - United States, 2010-2017. MMWR Surveill Summ. Nov 08, 2019;68(10):1-11. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Mackie B, Kellett U, Mitchell M, Tonge A. The experiences of rural and remote families involved in an inter-hospital transfer to a tertiary ICU: a hermeneutic study. Aust Crit Care. Nov 2014;27(4):177-182. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Cezar AG, Castanhel FD, Grosseman S. Needs of family members of patients in intensive care and their perception of medical communication. Crit Care Sci. Mar 01, 2023;35(1):73-83. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Nadig NR, Sterba KR, Johnson EE, Goodwin AJ, Ford DW. Inter-ICU transfer of patients with ventilator dependent respiratory failure: qualitative analysis of family and physician perspectives. Patient Educ Couns. Sep 2019;102(9):1703-1710. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Wendlandt B, Kime M, Carson S. The impact of family visitor restrictions on healthcare workers in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. Feb 2022;68:103123. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Hart JL, Turnbull AE, Oppenheim IM, Courtright KR. Family-centered care during the COVID-19 era. J Pain Symptom Manage. Aug 2020;60(2):e93-e97. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Johansson A, Larsson M, Ivarsson B. Patients' experiences with a digital primary health care concept using written dialogues: a pilot study. J Prim Care Community Health. Mar 02, 2020;11:2150132720910564. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Powe BD. Health information seeking among rural African Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics: it is built, did they come? Nurs Clin North Am. Sep 2015;50(3):531-543. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Kramer JM, Guerrero F, Caoili A, Beasley JB, Kalb L, Klein A, et al. Telehealth information and communication technology access for family caregivers of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and mental health needs. Disabil Health J. Jul 2023;16(3):101463. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Blount MA, Douglas MD, Li C, Walston DT, Nelms PL, Hughes CL, et al. Opportunities and challenges to advance health equity using digital health tools in underserved communities in Southeast US: a mixed methods study. J Prim Care Community Health. 2023;14:21501319231184789. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Kaihlanen AM, Virtanen L, Buchert U, Safarov N, Valkonen P, Hietapakka L, et al. Towards digital health equity - a qualitative study of the challenges experienced by vulnerable groups in using digital health services in the COVID-19 era. BMC Health Serv Res. Feb 12, 2022;22(1):188. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Cox CE, Ashana DC, Riley IL, Olsen MK, Casarett D, Haines KL, et al. Mobile application-based communication facilitation platform for family members of critically ill patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. Jan 02, 2024;7(1):e2349666. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Faiola A, Papautsky EL, Isola M. Empowering the aging with mobile health: a mHealth framework for supporting sustainable healthy lifestyle behavior. Curr Probl Cardiol. Aug 2019;44(8):232-266. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Nie L, Oldenburg B, Cao Y, Ren W. Continuous usage intention of mobile health services: model construction and validation. BMC Health Serv Res. May 05, 2023;23(1):442. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Beer JM, Smith KN, Kennedy T, Mois G, Acena D, Gallerani DG, et al. A focus group evaluation of breathe easier: a mindfulness-based mHealth app for survivors of lung cancer and their family members. Am J Health Promot. Sep 2020;34(7):770-778. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Shin JW, Happ MB, Tate JA. VidaTalk™ patient communication application "opened up" communication between nonvocal ICU patients and their family. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. Oct 2021;66:103075. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. George A. The lived experiences of telemedicine intensive care unit nurses. Am J Crit Care. Nov 01, 2024;33(6):421-432. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Dees ML, Carpenter JS, Longtin K. Communication between registered nurses and family members of intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Nurse. Dec 01, 2022;42(6):25-34. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Petrinec AB, Wilk C, Hughes JW, Zullo MD, George RL. Self-care mental health app intervention for post-intensive care syndrome-family: a randomized pilot study. Am J Crit Care. Nov 01, 2023;32(6):440-448. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Zhang X, Sun S, Jiangenuer L, Zhao P, Lei H, Xu Z, et al. Effect of mobile health (mHealth) on improving anxiety, depression and quality of life in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. Apr 01, 2025;374:11-25. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Lattie EG, Adkins EC, Winquist N, Stiles-Shields C, Wafford QE, Graham AK. Digital mental health interventions for depression, anxiety, and enhancement of psychological well-being among college students: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Jul 22, 2019;21(7):e12869. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Liblub S, Pringle K, McLaughlin K, Cummins A. Peer support and mobile health for perinatal mental health: a scoping review. Birth. Sep 24, 2024;51(3):484-496. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Saghafi F, West S, Lopez V, Cleary M. Mental health impacts of family members isolated from patients in the ICU during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Issues Ment Health Nurs. Jan 2022;43(1):87-90. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Torke AM, Monahan P, Callahan CM, Helft PR, Sachs GA, Wocial LD, et al. Validation of the family inpatient communication survey. J Pain Symptom Manage. Jan 2017;53(1):96-108.e4. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Newell S, Jordan Z. The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. Jan 2015;13(1):76-87. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Shin HR, Um SR, Yoon HJ, Choi EY, Shin WC, Lee HY, et al. Comprehensive senior technology acceptance model of daily living assistive technology for older adults with frailty: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. Apr 10, 2023;25:e41935. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Wiig S, Schibevaag L, Tvete Zachrisen R, Hannisdal E, Anderson JE, Haraldseid-Driftland C. Next-of-kin involvement in regulatory investigations of adverse events that caused patient death: a process evaluation (part II: the inspectors' perspective). J Patient Saf. Dec 01, 2021;17(8):e1707-e1712. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Hanna JR, Rapa E, Dalton LJ, Hughes R, McGlinchey T, Bennett KM, et al. A qualitative study of bereaved relatives' end of life experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Palliat Med. May 2021;35(5):843-851. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Rubens FD, Rothwell DM, Al Zayadi A, Sundaresan S, Ramsay T, Forster A. Impact of patient characteristics on the Canadian Patient Experiences Survey-Inpatient Care: survey analysis from an academic tertiary care centre. BMJ Open. Aug 30, 2018;8(8):e021575. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Smarr KL, Keefer AL. Measures of depression and depressive symptoms: Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). Nov 2011;63 Suppl 11:S454-S466. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. López-Torres O, Rodríguez-Longobardo C, Escribano-Tabernero R, Fernández-Elías VE. Hydration, hyperthermia, glycogen, and recovery: crucial factors in exercise performance-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. Oct 19, 2023;15(20):4442. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Cain MK, Zhang Z, Yuan KH. Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: prevalence, influence and estimation. Behav Res Methods. Oct 2017;49(5):1716-1735. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Vaz M, D'Silva C, Krishna B, Ramachandran P, D'Souza MC, Mendonca L, et al. Understanding the challenges of intensive care staff in communicating with patients and patients' families during the COVID-19 crisis: a qualitative exploration. Cureus. Jun 2023;15(6):e40961. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Galazzi A, Binda F, Gambazza S, Cantù F, Colombo E, Adamini I, et al. The end of life of patients with COVID-19 in intensive care unit and the stress level on their family members: a cross-sectional study. Nurs Crit Care. Jan 2023;28(1):133-140. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Fortunatti CP, Silva NR, Silva YP, Canales DM, Veloso GG, Acuña JE, et al. Association between psychosocial factors and satisfaction with communication in family members of intensive care unit patients during COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory cross-sectional study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. Jun 2023;76:103386. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Yuan C, Xiao Y, Wang F, Wang Y, Wang Y, Lin F. The effect of video visitation on intensive care unit patients and family members outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. Jun 2023;76:103394. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Reifarth E, Garcia Borrega J, Kochanek M. How to communicate with family members of the critically ill in the intensive care unit: a scoping review. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. Jun 2023;76:103420. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Caballero-Suárez NP, Barrientos-Casarrubias V, Gutiérrez-Velilla E, González Avilés LM, Pérez-López LD, Alvarado-De la Barrera C, et al. Anxiety and depression in family members of critically ill Covid-19 inpatients: brief psychological interventions via telephone, an exploratory study. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023;16:3319-3331. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    AD: anxiety and depression
    HIPAA: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
    ICU: intensive care unit
    mHealth: mobile health
    REDCap: Research Electronic Data Capture
    RQ: research question

    Edited by J Sarvestan; submitted 03.Apr.2025; peer-reviewed by ME Abdelgawad; comments to author 16.Jul.2025; revised version received 21.Dec.2025; accepted 22.Dec.2025; published 20.Mar.2026.

    Copyright

    ©Anthony Faiola, Saira Soroya, Zhonglin Hao, Reinhold Munker. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 20.Mar.2026.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.