Patients’ Perceptions of an Exercise Program Delivered Following Discharge From Hospital After Critical Illness (the Revive Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The REVIVE randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigated the effectiveness of an individually tailored (personalized) exercise program for patients discharged from hospital after critical illness. By including qualitative methods, we aimed to explore patients' perceptions of engaging in the exercise program. METHODS: Patients were recruited from general intensive care units in 6 hospitals in Northern Ireland. Patients allocated to the exercise intervention group were invited to participate in this qualitative study. Independent semistructured interviews were conducted at 6 months after randomization. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and content analysis used to explore themes arising from the data. RESULTS: Of 30 patients allocated to the exercise group, 21 completed the interviews. Patients provided insight into the physical and mental sequelae they experienced following critical illness. There was a strong sense of patients' need for the exercise program and its importance for their recovery following discharge home. Key facilitators of the intervention included supervision, tailoring of the exercises to personal needs, and the exercise manual. Barriers included poor mental health, existing physical limitations, and lack of motivation. Patients' views of outcome measures in the REVIVE RCT varied. Many patients were unsure about what would be the best way of measuring how the program affected their health. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study adds an important perspective on patients' attitude to an exercise intervention following recovery from critical illness, and provides insight into the potential facilitators and barriers to delivery of the program and how programs should be evolved for future trials.
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 | 0.021 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".