Development of the support needs after <scp>ICU</scp> (<scp>SNAC</scp>) questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To develop a questionnaire to identify Intensive Care survivor needs at key transitions during the recovery process, and assess its validity and reliability in a group of ICU survivors. METHODS: Development of the Support Needs After ICU (SNAC) questionnaire was based on a systematic scoping review, and analysis of patient interviews (n = 22). Face and content validity were assessed by service users (n = 12) and an expert panel of healthcare professionals (n = 6). A pilot survey among 200 ICU survivors assessed recruitment at one of five different stages after ICU discharge [(1) in hospital, (2) < 6 weeks, (3) 7 weeks to 6 months, (4) 7 to 12 months, or (5) 12 to 24 months post-hospital discharge]; to assess reliability of the SNAC questionnaire; and to conduct exploratory data analysis. Reliability was determined using Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency; intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability. We explored correlations with sociodemographic variables using Pearson's correlation coefficient; differences between questionnaire scores and patient demographics using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The SNAC questionnaire consisted of 32 items that assessed five categories of support needs (informational, emotional, instrumental [e.g. practical physical help, provision of equipment or training], appraisal [e.g. clinician feedback on recovery] and spiritual needs). ICU survivors were recruited from Northern Ireland, England and Scotland. From a total of 375 questionnaires distributed, 202 (54%) were returned. The questionnaire had high internal consistency (0.97) and high test-retest reliability (r = 0.8) with subcategories ranging from 0.3 to 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: The SNAC questionnaire appears to be a comprehensive, valid, and reliable questionnaire. Further research will enable more robust examination of its properties e.g. factor analysis, and establish its utility in identifying whether patients' support needs evolve over time. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The SNAC questionnaire has the potential to be used to identify ICU survivors' needs and inform post-hospital support services.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".