In-Bed Mobilization in Critically Ill Children: A Safety and Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implementing two methods of in-bed mobilization in critically ill children. This prospective cohort trial was conducted at McMaster Children's Hospital, Pediatric Critical Care Unit (PCCU). Hemodynamically stable patients aged 3 to 17 years with a longer than 24-hour PCCU stay were eligible to participate in the study. Children with cardiorespiratory instability, already mobilizing well or at their baseline mobility, anticipated death during this PCCU admission, and those with contraindications to mobilization were excluded. Two methods of mobilization were applied for a maximum of 2 days, respectively, depending on the level of consciousness and cognitive ability of the participant. In-bed cycling was used for passive mobilization and interactive video games (VG) were used for active mobilization. The primary outcomes were safety and feasibility. Secondary outcomes were physical activity during the study period, as reflected by accelerometer measurements. A total of 406 patients were screened over 1 year, 35 of who were eligible and 31 (89%) consented to participate. Median age of participants was 11 years (quartile 1 is 6 years and quartile 3 is 14 years), and 15 (48%) were male. Twenty-five (81%) participants received the study intervention, 22 (88%) of who received the intervention within 24 hours of consent. Twenty-one (84%) participants received in-bed cycling, five (20%) received VG, and only one received both. Fifteen (60%) completed the prescribed 2-day intervention, while in 11 (44%) the intervention was interrupted or not applied, most commonly because the patient was transferred out of the PCCU. Physical activity was greater during the intervention compared with nonintervention times with in-bed cycling, but not with VG. There were no adverse events attributable to the intervention. This pilot reveals that in-bed cycling can enhance physical activity, and appears to be safe and feasible in this group of critically ill children. VG was feasible only in a minority of patients who were cooperative and age appropriate. Further research is necessary to evaluate the efficacy and most appropriate methods of enhancing mobility and rehabilitation in this population.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".