MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912078676 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000003367

Preventing Posttraumatic Stress in ICU Survivors: A Single-Center Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of ICU Diaries and Psychoeducation*

2018· article· en· W2912078676 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maia S. Kredentser, Marcus Blouw, Nicole Marten, Jitender Sareen, O. Joseph Bienvenu, Jennifer Ryu, Brooke Beatie, Sarvesh Logsetty, Lesley A. Graff, Shauna Eggertson, Sophia Sweatman, Braeden Debroni, Nina Cianflone, Rakesh C. Arora, Ryan Zarychanski, Kendiss Olafson

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaSt. Boniface HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterquartile rangeMedicinePsychoeducationHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleRandomized controlled trialIntensive care unitAnxietyDepression (economics)Mechanical ventilationCenter for Epidemiologic Studies Depression ScalePhysical therapyEmergency medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Critical illness can have a significant psychological impact on patients and their families. To inform the design of a larger trial, we assessed feasibility of ICU diaries and psychoeducation to prevent posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety following ICU stays. DESIGN: Four-arm pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A 10-bed tertiary ICU in Winnipeg, MB, Canada. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients greater than 17 years old with predicted ICU stays greater than 72 hours and mechanical ventilation duration greater than 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to usual care, ICU diary, psychoeducation, or both ICU diary and psychoeducation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Our primary objective was to determine feasibility measured by enrollment/mo. Secondary outcomes included acceptability of the ICU diary intervention and psychological distress, including patients' memories 1 week post ICU using the ICU Memory Tool, posttraumatic stress disorder (Impact of Events Scale-Revised), depression, and anxiety symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) 30 and 90 days post ICU. Over 3.5 years, we enrolled 58 patients, an average of 1.9 participants/mo. Families and healthcare providers wrote a mean of 3.2 diary entries/d (SD, 2.9) and indicated positive attitudes and low perceived burden toward ICU diary participation. A majority of patients reported distressing memories of their ICU stay. Those who received the diary intervention had significantly lower median Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (3.0 [interquartile range, 2-6.25] vs 8.0 [interquartile range, 7-10]; p = 0.01) and depression (3.0 [interquartile range, 1.75-5.25] vs 5.0 [interquartile range, 4-9]; p = 0.04) symptom scores at 90 days than patients who did not receive a diary. CONCLUSIONS: ICU diaries are a feasible intervention in a tertiary Canadian ICU context. Preliminary evidence supports the efficacy of ICU diaries to reduce psychological morbidity following discharge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations91
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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