The meaning of follow‐up in intensive care: patients’ perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing understanding of correlations between experiences and memories from a period of intensive care treatment and complaints of mental character has led to the development of various patient follow-up offers. Little, however, is known about what follow-up may mean to patients. The aim of this study was to explore the meaning of patients' lived experience of being followed-up in a programme consisting of patient diaries, post-intensive care unit (ICU) conversations and visits back to the ICU. Field notes were made from encounters with patients (n = 10) during follow-up. Then they were interviewed twice, at about 6 months (n = 8) and at about 18 months (n = 6) after discharge from hospital. The first interview focused on the patients' experience during intensive care and on their reflections on the experience. The second interview had a particular focus on the meaning for each individual of the sources for understanding that they had been offered. The data was analysed by using a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach. The study corroborated earlier research that found that patients seek to understand experiences they have undergone. They search for meaning in experiences and memories. It is realized that the diary as text and photos, in addition to conveying care and love, is important to induce postexperience reflections. It provided guideposts that follow-up conversations could pursue in the patient's quest for meaning. The conversation also provided an opening for, and could in itself be essential to, the patient's willingness to talk about experiences. It allowed the nurse to accompany the patient in his quest for meaning. The return visit appeared to be significant in the patient's quest for meaning. It was via 'feeling' the room that 'things' fell into place. The study is important in elucidating aspects that are beneficial in the patient's follow-up and which lay the basis for further development of existing and new follow-up offers.
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.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it