Toward understanding evidence uptake: Semirecumbency for pneumonia prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials show that the semirecumbent position compared with the supine position is associated with less gastroesophageal aspiration and pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. However, semirecumbency is inconsistently used in practice. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives of intensive care unit clinicians regarding the determinants and consequences of semirecumbency. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and focus groups. SETTING: Three university-affiliated intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 93 intensive care unit clinicians, including bedside nurses, respiratory therapists, physiotherapists, nutritionists, residents, fellows, and intensivists. METHODS: We elicited perceptions about benefits and harms of semirecumbency, factors promoting and deterring use, and health systems changes to encourage semirecumbency. Interview and focus group notes were analyzed inductively to identify emerging themes. Validation methods involved triangulation by multidisciplinary analysis of several data sources collected through multiple methods and member checking. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intensivists and nutritionists were familiar with semirecumbency as a potential pneumonia prevention strategy, whereas other clinicians were not. When made aware of the evidence, all participants endorsed semirecumbency. Nurses perceived that the main determinant of semirecumbency was physicians' orders, whereas intensivists perceived that the main determinant was nursing preference. Participants identified barriers to semirecumbency related to useful alternative positions (e.g., lateral position), contraindications (e.g., hemodynamic instability), risk of harm (e.g., decubitus ulcers), safety (e.g., sliding out of the bed), and resources (e.g., insufficient beds facilitating semirecumbency). Education, guidelines, reminders, audit and feedback, charting, and quality improvement initiatives were advocated to promote semirecumbency. CONCLUSIONS: Under-utilization of semirecumbency for pneumonia prevention is influenced by insufficient awareness of its benefit, real and perceived deterrents, poor agreement about implementation responsibility, and lack of enabling and reinforcing strategies. Cognitive, behavioral, and administrative approaches to enhancing evidence uptake may be needed in the complex, dynamic intensive care unit setting.
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 | 0.277 | 0.455 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".