402 people participated in this study. The sample was divided into 4 different profiles: patients, family members, HCP and volunteers. Table 1 shows the detailed socio-demographic data divided into each of the groups. The questionnaire was administered to:
-
50 patients, 32 (64%) were women, 14 (28%) lived alone and 23 (46%) with their partner, with a mean age of 71.58 years (CI95%, 68.44–74.72); 22 (44%) had primary education and 9 (18%) university studies.
-
45 relatives, 35 (77.8%) were women, 6 (13.3%) lived alone and 21 (46.7%) with their partner, with a mean age of 57.16 years (CI95%, 52.50-61.81); 8 (17.8%) had primary education and 20 (44.4%) university studies.
-
136 HCP, 108 (79.4%) were women, the mean age was 45.37 years (CI95%, 43.62–47.12) and a mean of 121.56 months (CI95%, 103.68-139.44) of experience in PC.
-
171 volunteers, 141 (82.5%) were women, 68 (39.8%) of them with higher education. The mean age was 59.02 years (CI95%, 56.91–61.14) and they had been collaborating with the organisation for an average of 53.51 months (CI95%, 44.01–63.01).
Table 1
Baseline socio-demographic data of participants
Variables
|
Patients
|
Relatives
|
HCP
|
Volunteers
|
Sample
|
50
|
45
|
136
|
171
|
Sex n (%)
Female
Male
|
|
|
|
|
32 (64)
|
35 (77.8)
|
108 (79.4)
|
141 (82.5)
|
18 (36)
|
10 (22.2)
|
28 (20.6)
|
30 (17.5)
|
Age (years)
mean (CI95%)
|
71.58(68.44–74.72)
|
57.16(52.50-61.81)
|
45.37(43.62–47.12)
|
59.02(56.91–61.14)
|
Education n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
Secondary
|
22 (44)
|
8 (17.8)
|
N/A
|
25 (14.6)
|
Grammar
|
14 (28)
|
14 (31.13)
|
N/A
|
52 (30.4)
|
College
|
5 (10)
|
2 (4.4)
|
N/A
|
22 (12.9)
|
University
|
9 (18)
|
20 (44.4)
|
N/A
|
68 (39.8)
|
Other
|
-
|
-
|
N/A
|
-
|
Coexistence n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
Alone
|
14 (28)
|
6 (13.3)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Spouse
|
23 (46)
|
21 (46.7)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Spouse+
|
1 (2)
|
9 (20)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Children
|
10 (20)
|
8 (17.8)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Adult
|
9 (18)
|
5 (11.1)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Institution
|
1 (2)
|
3 (6.7)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Other
|
2 (4)
|
-
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Length of time of experience months
mean (CI95%)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
121.56(103.68–139.4)
|
53.51(44.01–63.01)
|
HCP: Health Care Professionals; NA: Not applicable; CI95%: Confidence Interval 95%; Spouse: With spouse/partner; Spouse+: With spouse/partner and children < 18 years old; Children: With children > 18 years old; Adult: With other(s) adult(s); Institution: In an institution |
Perceived usefulness of NT for volunteering
A summary of the most salient results is presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Main results of perceived usefulness in the participants
Variables
|
Patients
|
Relatives
|
HCP
|
Volunteers
|
Sample
|
50
|
45
|
136
|
171
|
Satisfaction with volunteering
mean (CI95%)
|
8.70/10 (8.42–8.98)
|
7.60/10 (7.18–8.02)
|
8.02/10 (7.68–8.36)
|
8.96/10 (8.75–9.16)
|
Degree of agreement on the type of volunteering they prefer to use n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
On site
|
45 (90)
|
34 (84.1)
|
71 (52.2)
|
142 (86.1)
|
On site but with the support of NT
|
27 (54)
|
27 (61.4)
|
42 (30.9)
|
121 (74.2)
|
Some days face-to-face and others via video call
|
21 (42)
|
28 (63.6)
|
5 (3.7)
|
75 (45.7)
|
Phone or videocall except some ocassions
|
20 (40)
|
14 (31.8)
|
5 (3.7)
|
30 (24.5)
|
Phone or video call only
|
20 (40)
|
13 (29.5)
|
1 (0.7)
|
|
Utility of NT in volunteering n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed
|
25 (50)
|
28 (63.6)
|
88 (77.8)
|
129 (78.2)
|
Neither agree nor disagree
|
7 (14)
|
8 (18.2)
|
23 (20.3)
|
33 (20.3)
|
Disagree
|
18 (36)
|
8 (18.2)
|
2 (1.8)
|
107 (65.6)
|
Benefits n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed
|
23 (46)
|
28 (63.6)
|
92 (82.1)
|
129 (78.2)
|
Neither agree nor disagree
|
4 (8)
|
10 (22.7)
|
17 (27.8)
|
26 (15.8)
|
Disagree
|
23 (46)
|
6 (13.6)
|
3 (3.6)
|
10 (6)
|
Main Benefit n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
No benefits
|
13 (26)
|
4 (8.9)
|
N/A
|
11 (7.2)
|
Comfort
|
13 (26)
|
9 (20)
|
1 (1)
|
17 (11.1)
|
Support
|
12 (24)
|
17 (37.8)
|
23 (22.5)
|
15 (9.8)
|
Use NT ocassionally
|
8 (16)
|
3 (6.7)
|
6 (5.9)
|
10 (6.5)
|
Face to face is tired
|
2 (4)
|
N/A
|
1 (1)
|
1 (0.7)
|
Geographical dispersion
|
1 (2)
|
3 (6.7)
|
41 (40.2)
|
N/A
|
More availability
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
28 (18.3)
|
More knowledges due to pandemic
|
1 (2)
|
2 (4.4)
|
N/A
|
1 (0.7)
|
Another option
|
N/A
|
4 (8.9)
|
20 (19.6)
|
15 (9.8)
|
Support relatives
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
3 (2.9)
|
2 (1.3)
|
Coordination
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
7 (6.9)
|
23 (15)
|
Facilitating communication
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
23 (15)
|
Avoiding language barriers
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
1 (0.7)
|
Training
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
1 (0.7)
|
Disadvantages n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed
|
31 (62)
|
27 (61.4)
|
25 (22.5)
|
49 (29.7)
|
Neither agree nor disagree
|
6 (12)
|
9 (20.5)
|
44 (39.6)
|
54 (32.7)
|
Disagree
|
13 (26)
|
8 (18.1)
|
42 (37.8)
|
62 (37.6)
|
Main Disadvantages n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
None
|
9 (18)
|
4 (8.9)
|
1 (0.7)
|
34 (19.9)
|
Lack of human warth
|
20 (40)
|
15 (33.3)
|
16 (11.8)
|
29 (17)
|
Lack of comprehension
|
7 (14)
|
19 (42.2)
|
67 (49.3)
|
58 (33.9)
|
Physical impairment
|
9 (18)
|
5 (11.1)
|
3 (2.2)
|
12 (7)
|
Preference of face to face volunteering
|
5 (10)
|
N/A
|
9 (6.6)
|
1 (0.6)
|
Virtual accompaniment abuse
|
N/A
|
1 (2.2)
|
2 (1.5)
|
2 (1.2)
|
Reluctance to volunteer
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
3 (2.2)
|
8 (4.7)
|
HCP: Health Care Professionals; CI95%: Confidence Interval 95%; NA: Not applicable |
The 88% of patients (44/50) rating their volunteering experience as very good, with an average score of 8.70/10 (CI95% 8.42–8.98). Regarding NT and volunteering, the 90% (45/50) preferred face to face volunteering and 54% (27/50) said that they could do some specific activity through NT but in a face to face accompaniment. More details are shown in the Fig. 1. About the usefulness, the 50% considered NT useful for volunteering benefits, the 36% (23/50 considered the NT as an advantage. The main benefits were greater comfort (26%) and support (24%). Another benefits were: use the NT occasionally (16%), the face to face is tired (4%) and this technological volunteering avoid the distance.
The 62% of patients considered that the use of NT during volunteering would be a disadvantage mainly due to the lack of human warmth (40%). In addition, the patients mentioned the lack of comprehension (14%), physical impairment (18%) or directly the preference of face to face volunteering (10%) as disadvantage for use of NT.
The 57.8% of relatives (26/45) reported their volunteering experience as very good, with an average score of 7.60/10 (CI95% 7.18–8.02). Regarding NT and volunteering, the 84.1% (34/45) preferred face to face volunteering and 61.4% (27/45) said that they could do some specific activity through NT but in a face to face accompaniment. More details are shown in the Fig. 1. About the usefulness, the 63.6% (28/45) considered NT useful for volunteering benefits, the 63.7% (28/45) considered the NT as an advantage. The main benefits were greater comfort (20%) and support (37.8%). Another benefits were: use the NT occasionally (6.7%) and this technological volunteering avoid the distance.
The 61.4% (27/45) of relatives considered that the use of NT during volunteering would be a disadvantage mainly due to the lack of human warmth (33.3%) and the lack of comprehension (42.2%). In addition, the relatives mentioned physical impairment (11.1%) as disadvantage for use of NT.
The 73.5% of HCP (83/136) rating their experience with volunteers as part of the team and the support that volunteers offered to patients/relatives as very good, with an average score of 8.02/10 (CI95% 7.68–8.36). Regarding NT and volunteering, the 52.2% (71/136) of HCP would alternate between digital and face-to-face volunteering and 30.9% (42/136) said that they could do some specific activity through NT but in a face to face accompaniment. More details are shown in the Fig. 1. About the usefulness, the 77.8% (88/136) considered NT useful for volunteering benefits, the 61% (83/136) considered the NT as an advantage. The main benefits were avoiding geographical dispersion (30.1%) and support (16.9%). Another benefits were: use the NT occasionally (4.4%) and using as an another resource.
The 18.4% (25/136) of HCP considered that the use of NT during volunteering would be a disadvantage mainly due to the lack of human warmth (11.8%) and the lack of comprehension (49.3%). In addition, preferred a face to face volunteer (6.6%) and physical impediments to using the NT.
The 86% of volunteers (147/171) considered their volunteering experience as very good, with an average score of 8.96/10 (CI95% 8.75–9.16). Regarding NT and volunteering, the 86.1% (142/171) preferred face to face volunteering and 74.2% (121/171) said that they could do some specific activity through NT but in a face to face accompaniment. More details are shown in the Fig. 1. About the usefulness, the 78.2% (129/171) considered NT useful for volunteering benefits, the 81.5% (133/171) considered the NT as an advantage. The main benefits were greater comfort (11.1%) and more availability (18.3%). Another benefits were: support (9.8%) and another resource if they cannot go.
The 29.7% (49/171) of HCP considered that the use of NT during volunteering would be a disadvantage mainly due to the lack of human warmth (17%) and the lack of comprehension (33.9%). In addition, there is reluctance on the part of volunteers to use NT (4.7%) and physical impediments to using the NT (7%).
In order to obtain more detailed information about the perceived usefulness of NT in the different groups, in-depth interviews were conducted for patients and relatives, and focus groups were conducted for HCP and volunteers. In depth interviews were carried out with 10 patients, 7 of whom were women with an age range of 50–82 years. Most of these patients were admitted to an inpatient unit of a PC centre. Therefore, the interviews with these patients were conducted face-to-face. Those who were interviewed at home were interviewed by telephone. In the group of relatives, ten family members were interviewed, eight of whom were women and two men. Six of them had a spousal relationship with the patient. The other four relatives were children of the patients. Seven of the interviewees were over 65 years of age.
Two focus groups of professionals were held. In the first one, eight professionals from the following specialities took part: care coordination, supervision of the inpatient unit, psychology, physiotherapist, social work and nursing. Two months later and in order to reach saturation, a second focus group was held with the participation of five professionals from the specialities of: psychology, nursing, medicine and nursing assistant.
Two focus groups were carried out with volunteers. In both volunteer focus groups, 8 volunteers participated, 14 of whom were women and with an average time of collaboration of 5 years. All the volunteers collaborate in the care field, most of them being volunteers in the Hospitalisation Unit and one of them in Home Care, 8 of them combine their activity at both sites.
Three themes about the perceived usefulness of NT for volunteering in PC were addressed form the qualitative analysis of the four groups of stakeholders: Difficulties in the use of NT, Interpersonal relationship, Benefits, Usefulness and Training for volunteers.
THEME 1: Difficulties in the use of NT
The patients' relatives point out as a difficulty the physical or cognitive limitations that the patients might have due to their illness or age, although they also state that they could help them in case they could not manage on their own.
"Perhaps my husband would have had difficulty holding the device because his hands hurt, but nowadays there are brackets" (Relative. Women, 57 years old)
"In my mother's case, I would have handled them (refers NT), she was very limited, but the thing is to adapt to the user in question” (Relative. Women, 48 years old)
Volunteers mention that, in their experience, physical impairment can be an impediment in their virtual accompaniment. As well as loneliness, patients who find themselves without any social network will create a dependent relationship with the volunteer.
"A person with a recently cured trachea crying and choking is very difficult to listen to" (Volunteer 3, women, 8 years of experience)
"A relationship was created in which he called me outside the hours I called him, so it was very complicated to discern when it was a need and when it was dependence... It was very necessary for me to discern when to attend to him and when not to attend to him because it could create dependence" (Volunteer 3, women, 8 years of experience)
The volunteers also highlight as a difficulty other aspects such as the lack of closeness, affection, looks, silence and not having the support of non-verbal communication as when they accompanied in person. Likewise, the relationship with the family becomes more forced, it cannot be as natural, nor do they have the support of the environment to be able to bring up different topics of conversation with the patient.
"Keeping the conversation relaxed, respecting the silences when you enter a conversation and see the person sinking, never ending the conversation in a sad mood, always ending the conversation when the patient is in good state of mind, looking for the elements and tools so that the conversation does not end" (Volunteer 3, women, 6 years of experience)
"Something specific to communication through a screen, I can think now of light, backgrounds..." (Volunteer 2, women, 2 years of experience)
"How do you do when you talk to the patient's wife: you are together in the same room, you ask her how she is, you talk about him in front of the patient...?" (Volunteer 3, women, 7 years of experience)
"Telephone accompaniment apart from the fact that you lack fundamental data such as non-verbal language, such as shared silences, touching, glances, that which is lacking... silences, you can interpret what they are crying, thinking, and these are elements that are complicated" (Volunteer 3, women, 7 years of experience)
Professionals and patients themselves highlight the digital divide as a difficulty, with professionals highlighting it especially in rural areas where they see patients, and although they believe that the pandemic has helped to narrow the gap, it is still a reality.
"The only requirement would be to level the population because not all the population does not have access to technology" (Social Worker, 1)
"Now I've done more video calls, Whatsapps with friends, family. Although every time I've had to do it, I've had to ask how to do it" (Patient. Women, 82 years old)
There are patients who say that they do not feel able to use NT.
"I don't understand it very well. Just Whatsapp, call and take pictures, nothing else" (Patient. Women, 77 years old)
Patients emphasised in their interviews that they preferred the interpersonal relationship that is created between the volunteer and the patient by having a person they feel close to but also indicated that they understood that in certain circumstances the use of NT was necessary.
"It is always nice to have someone looking out for you". (Patient. Women, 50 years old)
"I'm a face-to-face person, I'm not a video call person and so that has been a delay in the human relationship. But I understand the circumstances and if I had to do it that way, I would adapt” (Patient. Men, 66 years old)
THEME 2: Benefits of NT
Professionals and volunteers highlight the benefits of NT as the savings in travel time for the volunteer. And that, in addition, NT and the use of video calls can be a middle ground for the disadvantages of a fully telephonic relationship.
"There are volunteers who can leave their home once a week to go to a patient's home, but maybe if you give them the option that it can also be by video call, then maybe they get more involved because it allows them to organise themselves in a different way. I see it as positive" (Nurse, 2)
"I see two positive things with NT. One because before you could hear the voice and now you can see the face using NT with the pandemic. I'm in favour of that because right now you can't give yourself a hug, you can't give yourself a kiss. Now you can see yourself without the mask” (Nurse coordinator)
"It is much easier to take an hour out of your daily chores at home, than to take half an hour to go to the gentleman's house, be there for an hour and come back" (Volunteer 3, women, 7 years of experience)
Volunteers also noted as a benefit of accompaniment that they could have greater immediacy in attending to moments when the family member needed to talk to someone.
"This person, when they have a crisis, perhaps looking for knowledge, and even more so when there is already empathy, will look for you at any time. If they call you at 10 o'clock in the morning and you have not been able to attend to them or something happens, see how the patient accepts it. You have to be very clear that you have a certain number of hours and that is when you are available and they are fixed" (Volunteer 4, Men, 7 years of experience)
Patients also highlighted that for them, NT helped them to gain comfort when interacting with others.
"I think it's more comfortable. It's better for me that they call me and take care of me" (Patient. Women, 77 years old)
Relatives expressed that at least the first contacts should be face-to-face to build trust before moving on to digital accompaniment.
"I think that presence would help them to gain confidence. At the very least, the first one should have been face-to-face, knowing who to talk to and getting to know him" (Relative. Men, 46 years old)
The professionals pointed out that it was a good time for the incorporation of NT, especially when interpersonal relationships were not possible due to the pandemic.
"Right now I think the context is unbeatable. Right now, the lack of personal contact, the limitations of mobility and distance could make these tools make more sense and could be here to stay" (Nurse 1)
The relatives propose a variety of activities that can be carried out in digital volunteering. They included instrumental activities such as reading, sewing, games, social activities to laugh... Although they think of the role of the volunteer for the patient rather than for themselves. They do not see the usefulness of the service for them.
"My mother loved dancing, sewing, chatting. Any social activity where she could laugh, perfect" (Relative. Men, 46 years old)
"My mother really, I think she just needed to be able to talk to someone outside her family, even if she refused. Someone who would listen to her and she wouldn't feel guilty about telling them something sad about her last days" (Relative. Men, 46 years old)
The volunteers did point out that they saw the use of NT as necessary and useful and were excited to start such a project and continue their collaboration in these circumstances.
"The technology is here and that is going to stay. Once people learn, I think it's going to be a great invention" (Volunteer 4, Men, 7 years of experience)
"I think it is very necessary because society is asking for it because of the way things are going, because we can go much further virtually and we have to prepare for that” (Volunteer 4, Men, 7 years of experience)
THEME 3: Training of volunteers
The volunteers indicated that they were very excited to start this digital volunteering project but that they needed more training to be able to accompany as it was something new.
"Something specific to communication through a screen, I can think now of light, backgrounds..." (Volunteer 2, women, 2 years of experience)
"Because society is asking for it because of the way things are going, because we can go much further virtually and we have to prepare ourselves for it” (Volunteer 4, Men, 7 years of experience)
Relationship between the perceived usefulness and technological profile of the participants
Table 3 shows the scores of Tech-PH test and Fig. 2 shows the detailed percentage for each item of Tech-PH in four groups.
The perceived usefulness of the NT showed statistically significant relationship with age (r= -,276; p ≤ 0.001) the perceived usefulness decrease when the age increase; educational level (p = 0.016), the mean of perceived usefulness increase with the educational level; group of subjects (p ≤ 0.001) the mean of perceived usefulness is low in patients group; TechPH total score (r= ,303; p ≤ 0.001) and TechPHEnthusiam score (r= ,438; p ≤ 0.001), the perceived usefulness is directly correlated with the scores of Tech-PH and their correlation is moderate.
Table 3
Scores Tech-PH questionnaires
|
Patients
|
Relatives
|
HCP
|
Volunteers
|
Total Score X̅ (CI 95%)
|
2.5(CI95%,2.26–2.79)
|
3.05(CI95%,2.75–3.36)
|
3.41(CI95%, 3.3–3.52)
|
3.17(CI95%, 3.05–3.29)
|
TechAxiety factor
X̅ (CI 95%)
|
3.24 (CI95%, 3-3.49)
|
3.02 (CI95%, 2.7–3.31)
|
2.94(CI95%, 2.75–3.12)
|
3.09(CI95%, 2.91–3.28)
|
TechEnthusiasm factor
X̅ (CI 95%)
|
2.3 (CI95%, 1.97–2.6)
|
3.13 (CI95%, 2.75–3.52)
|
3.77(CI95%, 3.6–3.9)
|
3.45(CI95%, 3.29–3.61)
|
HCP: Health Care Professionals; X̅: media; CI95%: Confidence Interval 95% |