Interprofessional Survey of Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Early Mobilization of Critically Ill Patients in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Early mobilization is safe, feasible, and associated with better outcomes in patients with critical illness. However, barriers to mobilization in clinical practice still exist. The objective of this study was to assess the knowledge and practice patterns of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians, as well as the barriers and facilitators to early mobilization. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Intensive care units of 3 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty-eight ICU clinicians, including nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, and physiotherapists. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Perceived barriers, facilitators, knowledge, and practice patterns of early mobilization were assessed using a previously validated mobility survey tool. MAIN RESULTS: The overall response rate was 50.0% (138 of 274). Early mobilization was not perceived as a top priority in 49% of respondents. Results showed that clinicians were not fully aware of the benefits of early mobilization as per the current literature. About 58% of clinicians did not feel well trained and informed to mobilize mechanically ventilated patients. Perceptions on patient-level barriers varied with clinicians' professional training, but there was a high degree of interprofessional and intraprofessional disagreement on the permissible maximal level activity in different scenarios of critically ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows limited awareness, among our respondents, of the clinical benefits of early mobilization and high level of disagreement on the permissible maximal level of activity in the critically ill patients. Future studies should evaluate the role of knowledge translation in modifying these barriers and improving early mobilization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".