A Web-Based Recovery Program (ICUTogether) for Intensive Care Survivors: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Those who experience a critical illness or condition requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) frequently experience physical and psychological complications as a direct result of their critical illness or condition and ICU experience. Complications, if left untreated, can affect the quality of life of survivors and impact health care resources. Explorations of potential interventions to reduce the negative impact of an ICU experience have failed to establish an evidence-based intervention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a Web-based intensive care recovery program on the mental well-being of intensive care survivors and to determine if it is a cost-effective approach. METHODS: In total, 162 patients that survived an ICU experience will be recruited and randomized into 1 of 2 groups. The intervention group will receive access to the Web-based intensive care recovery program, ICUTogether, 2 weeks after discharge (n=81), and the control group will receive usual care (n=81). Mental well-being will be measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, The Impact of Events Scale-Revised and the 5-level 5-dimension EuroQoL at 3 time points (2 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months post discharge). Family support will be measured using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support at 3 time points. Analysis will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using regression modeling. Covariates will include baseline outcome measures, study allocation (intervention or control), age, gender, length of ICU stay, APACHE III score, level of family support, and hospital readmissions. Participants' evaluation of the mobile website will be sought at 12 months postdischarge. A cost utility analysis conducted at 12 months from a societal perspective will consider costs incurred by individuals as well as health care providers. RESULTS: Participant recruitment is currently underway. Recruitment is anticipated to be completed by December 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate a novel intervention in a group of ICU survivors. The findings from this study will inform a larger study and wider debate about an appropriate intervention in this population. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/10935.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".