Mixed‐method acceptability evaluation of a co‐designed bundled intervention to support communication for patients with an advanced airway in the intensive care unit during a pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although bundled communication interventions are recommended to address communication barriers for patients with an advanced airway in the intensive care unit (ICU) such interventions have not been evaluated in pandemic conditions. AIM: To evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of a co-designed bundled intervention to support communication with adult patients with an advanced airway in ICU in pandemic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, convergent mixed method design in a single centre medical-surgical ICU in Toronto, Canada between September 2021-March 2022. After the use of the co-designed bundled communication intervention quantitative data were collected from health care providers using validated acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility measures and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were collected from providers, patients and families using semi-structured interviews and analysed using content analysis applying the theoretical framework of acceptability. Joint table analysis enabled the integration of the two data sets. RESULTS: A total of 64 (41.3%) HCPs responded to the survey: 54 (84.4%) rated the intervention acceptable; 55 (85.9%) appropriate; and 49 (76.6%) feasible for use in this context. Qualitative data (23 interviews: 13 healthcare providers, 6 families and 4 patients) and the joint table analysis extended the understanding that intervention acceptability was related to positive affective attitudes and reduced communication frustration. Appropriateness and feasibility were promoted through intervention alignment with values, ability to personalize tools, and ease of access. Recommendations to improve the acceptability included adaptation for immobilized and/or restrained patients, additional education, and integration into existing workflows. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed method evaluation of a co-designed bundled intervention to support patient communication in the ICU during pandemic conditions demonstrated high rated and described acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility by participants. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: A co-designed communication intervention demonstrating stakeholder acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility can be implemented into clinical practice in pandemic and other infection prevention and control contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".