Education and support needs during recovery in acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a limited understanding of the long-term needs of survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) as they recover from their episode of critical illness. The Timing it Right (TIR) framework, which emphasizes ARDS survivors' journey from the ICU through to community re-integration, may provide a valuable construct to explore the support needs of ARDS survivors during their recovery. METHODS: Twenty-five ARDS survivors participated in qualitative interviews examining their needs for educational, emotional and tangible support for each phase of the TIR framework. Transcripts were analyzed using framework methodology. RESULTS: ARDS survivors' support needs varied across the illness trajectory. During the ICU stay, survivors were generally too ill to require information. The transfer to the general ward was characterized by anxiety surrounding decreased surveillance and concern for future health and treatment. Information needs focused on the events surrounding the acute illness, while physical and emotional needs revolved around physical therapy and psychological support for depression and anxiety. As patients were preparing for hospital discharge, they expressed a desire for specific information about the recovery and rehabilitation process following an episode of ARDS (e.g., outpatient physiotherapy, long-term sequela of the illness). Once in the community, survivors wanted guidance on home care, secondary prevention, and ARDS support groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the need for future educational and support interventions to meet the changing needs of ARDS survivors during their recovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".