Impact of Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes of Long-Stay ICU Survivors Recovering From Rehabilitation on Caregivers' Burden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to evaluate the time course of clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes of long-stay ICU survivors' and caregivers' burden. METHODS: The study included 23 subjects of mixed diagnosis (66 ± 11 y, body mass index 26.5 ± 5.6 kg/m(2)) with a recent episode of acute respiratory failure needing in-hospital rehabilitation. Subjects and caregivers were evaluated at hospital discharge (T0, n = 23) and 6 months later (T6, n = 16). At T0 and T6, subjects' clinical status (Dependence Nursing Scale), FVC (percent-of-predicted FVC and percent-of-predicted FEV), maximum inspiratory/expiratory pressures, effort tolerance (sit-to-stand, Takahashi test, 6-min walking distance), and disability (Barthel index) were evaluated. EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), McGill Quality of Life, General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A/HADS-D) were assessed. Caregivers' burden was measured by the Family Strain Questionnaire short form and Caregiver Needs Assessment. Correlation between subjects' clinical status and caregiver assessments was performed at T0. RESULTS: At T0, subjects showed compromised EQ-5Dindex (0.42 ± 0.28); 69% of caregivers had high Family Strain Questionnaire and moderate Caregiver Needs Assessment scores (30 ± 13). EQ-5Dindex was significantly related to Dependence Nursing Scale score (P < .001), percent-of-predicted FVC (P < .02), effort tolerance (all P < .01), disability (P < .001), and caregiver Family Strain Questionnaire score (P < .02). At T6, subjects significantly improved percent-of-predicted FVC (P < .05), maximum expiratory pressure (P < .01), effort tolerance (all P < .05), disability (P < .02), and EQ-5Dindex (P < .05), whereas caregivers' burden scores were unchanged. However, the percentage of caregivers with strain increased. CONCLUSIONS: In prolonged-ICU-stay survivors, EQ-5Dindex at hospital discharge is related to clinical status and caregivers' strain. Subjects' clinical status and EQ-5Dindex improves over time, but caregivers' burden remains high, suggesting the need to monitor/support caregivers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".