MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799733802 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000001547

Impressions of Early Mobilization of Critically Ill Children—Clinician, Patient, and Family Perspectives*

2018· article· en· W2799733802 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katina Zheng, Aimee Sarti, Sama Boles, Saoirse Cameron, Robert Carlisi, Heather Clark, Adeeb Khawaji, Saif Awladthani, Samah Al-Harbi, Karen Choong

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityImpactOttawa HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)MobilizationCritically illRandomized controlled trialDistressNursingPhysical therapyFamily medicineClinical psychologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To understand patient, family caregiver, and clinician impressions of early mobilization, the perceived barriers and facilitators to its implementation, and the use of in-bed cycling as a method of mobilization. DESIGN: A qualitative study, conducted as part of the Early Exercise in Critically ill Youth and Children, a preliminary Evaluation (wEECYCLE) Pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: McMaster Children's Hospital PICU, Hamilton, ON, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians (i.e., physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists), family caregivers, and capable patients age greater than or equal to 8 years old who were enrolled in a clinical trial of early mobilization in critically ill children (wEECYCLE). INTERVENTION: Semistructured, face-to-face interviews using a customized interview guide for clinicians, caregivers, and patients respectively, conducted after exposure to the early mobilization intervention. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants were interviewed (19 family caregivers, four patients, and 14 clinicians). Family caregivers and clinicians described similar interrelated themes representing barriers to mobilization, namely low prioritization of mobilization by the medical team, safety concerns, the lack of physiotherapy resources, and low patient motivation. Key facilitators were family trust in the healthcare team, team engagement, an a priori belief that physical activity is important, and participation in research. Increased familiarity and specific features such as the virtual reality component and ability to execute passive and or active mobilization helped to engage critically ill children in in-bed cycling. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians, patients, and families were highly supportive of mobilization in critically ill children; however, concerns were identified with respect to how and when to execute this practice. Understanding key stakeholder perspectives enables the development of strategies to facilitate the implementation of early mobilization and in-bed cycling, not just in the context of a clinical trial but also within the culture of practice in a PICU.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207