A randomised controlled trial of a nutrition and a decision support intervention to enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of supporting family members to partner with health professionals on nutrition intakes and decision-making and to evaluate intervention and study feasibility. BACKGROUND: Family partnerships can improve outcomes for critically ill patients and family members. Interventions that support families to engage with health professionals require evaluation. DESIGN: A multi-centre, randomised, parallel group superiority Phase II randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In nine intensive care units (ICUs) across three countries, critically ill patients ≥60 years, or those 55-59 years with advanced chronic diseases and expected ICU length of stay >72 h and their family member were enrolled between 9 May 2017 and 31 March 2020. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to either a decision support or nutrition optimisation family-centred intervention, or usual care. Primary outcomes included protein and energy intake during ICU and hospital stay (nutrition intervention) and family satisfaction (decision support). Study feasibility was assessed as a composite of consent rate, intervention adherence, contamination and physician awareness of intervention assignment. RESULTS: We randomised 135 patients/family members (consent rate 51.7%). The average rate of randomisation was 0.5 (0.13-1.53) per month. Unavailability (staff/family) was the major contributor to families not being approached for consent. Declined consent was attributed to families feeling overwhelmed (58/126, 46%). Pandemic visitor restrictions contributed to early study cessation. Intervention adherence for the decision support intervention was 76.9%-100.0% and for the nutrition intervention was 44.8%-100.0%. Nutritional adequacy, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision-making and overall family satisfaction with ICU were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Active partnerships between family members and health professionals are important but can be challenging to achieve in critical care contexts. We were unable to demonstrate the efficacy of either intervention. Feasibility outcomes suggest further refinement of interventions and study protocol may be warranted. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interventions to promote family partnerships in critical illness are needed but require a greater understanding of the extent to which families want and are able to engage and the activities in which they have most impact. REPORTING METHOD: This study has been reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers were engaged in and contributed to the development and subsequent iterations of the two family-centred interventions use in this study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT02920086. Registered on 30 September 2016. First patient enrolled on 9 May 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02920086&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".