The Impact of Randomized Family-Centered Interventions on Family-Centered Outcomes in the Adult Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To review the literature for randomized family-centered interventions with family-centered outcomes in the adult intensive care unit (ICU). Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library database from inception until February 2023. Study Selection: We included articles involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the adult critical care setting evaluating family-centered interventions and reporting family-centered outcomes. Data Extraction: We extracted data on author, year of publication, setting, number of participants, intervention category, intervention, and family-centered outcomes. Data Synthesis: There were 52 RCTs included in the analysis, mostly involving communication and receiving information (38%) and receiving care and meeting family member needs (38%). Nearly two-thirds of studies (N = 35; 67.3%) found improvements in at least 1 family-centered outcome. Most studies (N = 24/40; 60%) exploring the impact of family-centered interventions on mental health outcomes showed improvement. Improvements in patient-centered outcomes (N = 7/17; 41%) and healthcare worker outcomes (N = 1/5; 20%) were less commonly found. Conclusions: Family-centered interventions improve family-centered outcomes in the adult ICU and may be beneficial to patients and healthcare workers.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.339 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 it