Barriers and Facilitators to Early Rehabilitation in the ICU: A Theory Driven Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of early rehabilitation in the intensive care and marked variation in rates of implementation in practice. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to early rehabilitation in mechanically ventilated patients and their relevance to practice, as perceived by key ICU clinicians across North America. DESIGN: A Delphi study using the Theoretical Domains Framework, consisting of an initial qualitative round and subsequent quantitative rounds, was conducted to gather clinician agreement and perceived importance of barriers and facilitators to early rehabilitation. The survey included questions on the range of individual, sociocultural, and broader organizational influence on behaviors. SETTING: Clinical practice in North America. SUBJECTS: Four clinician groups (intensive care physicians, nurses, therapists, and respiratory therapists). INTERVENTIONS: A three-round Delphi study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty of 74 (67%) of invited clinicians completed the study. Agreement and consensus with Delphi survey items were high in both rounds within and between professional groups. Agreement was highest for items related to the domain "Beliefs about Consequences" (e.g., mortality reduction) and lowest for items related to the domain "Behavioral Regulation" (e.g., team discussion of barriers). Beliefs expressed about improved mortality and improvements in a variety of other long-term outcomes were not consistent with the current evidence base. Individual agreement scores changed very little from Round 2 to Round 3 of the Delphi, suggesting stability of beliefs and existing consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a wide range of beliefs about early rehabilitation that may influence provider behavior and the success and appropriateness of further implementation. The apparent inconsistency between the optimism of stakeholders regarding mortality reductions and a low level of implementation reported elsewhere represent the most major challenge to future implementation success. Other foci for future implementation work include planning, barriers, feedback, and education of staff.
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 | 0.066 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".