Functional status after intensive care: A challenge for rehabilitation professionals to improve outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine restrictions in daily functioning from a rehabilitation perspective in patients one year after discharge from the intensive care unit, and to identify prognostic factors for functional status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit for more than 48 h (n = 255). METHODS: One year after intensive care, functional status (Sickness Impact Profile) as primary outcome, and Quality of Life (SF-36), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale), and post-traumatic stress disorder (Impact of Events Scale) were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of the patients had restrictions in daily functioning. Walking and social activities were most frequently restricted (30-60% of the patients). Quality of life was lower than the general Dutch population. Symptoms of anxiety and depression were found in 14%, and post-traumatic stress disorder in 18%. Severity of illness at admission and length of stay in the intensive care unit were identified as prognostic factors, although they explained only 10% of functional status. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of long-lasting restrictions in physical, social and psychological functioning among patients who stayed in the intensive care unit for at least 2 days implies that these patients are a potential target population for rehabilitation medicine. Multidisciplinary therapies need to be developed and evaluated in order to improve outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".