Abstract 13410: Patient and Family Perspectives of Early Mobilization in Acute Cardiovascular Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Early mobilization (EM) is safe, feasible, and associated with good outcomes in people with acute CV disease. While studies have explored the perspectives of care providers on mobilization, little is known about patient and family member perspectives and experience with mobilization. Methods: Patient and family member surveys were developed using previously validated surveys (Family Satisfaction with Care in the ICU and the Patient Mobilization Attitudes & Beliefs survey). The survey assessed attitudes toward and knowledge of mobilization, the family member’s role in providing care and the mobilization care they received. Surveys were distributed to patients and their family members in an acute CV unit of a tertiary care centre in Montreal, Canada over a 4-month period. Results: 102 participants completed the survey (78 patients and 24 family members). Most patients (N=54; 69.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that EM should be routinely performed, although nearly half of the patients (N=37, 47.4%) felt that mobilization soon after admission was potentially dangerous. Out of 64 patients who underwent EM, 60 (93.8%) felt that mobilization helped their recovery (Figure). 35 patients (54.7%) felt that family member participation helped their mobilization. Family members included 12 (50.0%) spouses/partners, 10 (41.7%) children, 1 (4.2%) siblings, and 1 parent (4.2%). Most family members felt that mobilizing their relatives too soon after admission was potentially dangerous (N=17, 70.8%). However, family members were interested in being involved with mobilization (N=22; 91.7%) and only a few felt that mobilization should not be routinely performed (N=2; 8.3%). Conclusion: Patients felt that EM helped with their recovery process. Family members were interested in being involved in mobilizing their relatives. Our findings should inform efforts to overcome patient and family-related barriers to mobilization and design an EM program for acute CV care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".