MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185000355 · doi:10.1111/nicc.12695

Development of the support needs after <scp>ICU</scp> (<scp>SNAC</scp>) questionnaire

2021· review· en· W3185000355 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda O’Neill, Mark Linden, Pam Ramsay, Alia Darweish Medniuk, Joanne Outtrim, Judy King, Bronagh Blackwood

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing in Critical Care · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersIntensive Care Foundation
KeywordsIntraclass correlationCronbach's alphaReliability (semiconductor)MedicineContent validityTest (biology)Physical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing in Critical CareSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207