MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946212710 · doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2441-6

Identifying patients’ support needs following critical illness: a scoping review of the qualitative literature

2019· review· en· W2946212710 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judy King, Brenda O’Neill, Pam Ramsay, Mark Linden, Alia Darweish Medniuk, Joanne Outtrim, Bronagh Blackwood

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersIntensive Care Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCritical illnessQualitative researchIntensive care medicineCritically illFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intensive care survivors suffer chronic and potentially life-changing physical, psychosocial and cognitive sequelae, and supporting recovery is an international priority. As survivors' transition from the intensive care unit to home, their support needs develop and change. METHODS: In this scoping review, we categorised patients' support needs using House's Social Support Needs framework (informational, emotional, instrumental, appraisal) and mapped these against the Timing it Right framework reflecting the patient's transition from intensive care (event/diagnosis) to ward (stabilisation/preparation) and discharge home (implementation/adaptation). We searched electronic databases from 2000 to 2017 for qualitative research studies reporting adult critical care survivors' experiences of care. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted and coded data. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. RESULTS: From 3035 references, we included 32 studies involving 702 patients. Studies were conducted in UK and Europe (n = 17, 53%), Canada and the USA (n = 6, 19%), Australasia (n = 6, 19%), Hong Kong (n = 1, 3%), Jordan (n = 1, 3%) and multi-country (n = 1, 3%). Across the recovery trajectory, informational, emotional, instrumental, appraisal and spiritual support needs were evident, and the nature and intensity of need differed when mapped against the Timing it Right framework. Informational needs changed from needing basic facts about admission, to detail about progress and treatments and coping with long-term sequelae. The nature of emotional needs changed from needing to cope with confusion, anxiety and comfort, to a need for security and family presence, coping with flashbacks, and needing counselling and community support. Early instrumental needs ranged from managing sleep, fatigue, pain and needing nursing care and transitioned to needing physical and cognitive ability support, strength training and personal hygiene; and at home, regaining independence, strength and return to work. Appraisal needs related to obtaining feedback on progress, and after discharge, needing reassurance from others who had been through the ICU experience. CONCLUSIONS: This review is the first to identify the change in social support needs among intensive care survivors as they transition from intensive care to the home environment. An understanding of needs at different transition periods would help inform health service provision and support for survivors.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0220.024
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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