Efficacy of Early Enhanced Occupational Therapy in an Intensive Care Unit (EFFORT–ICU): A Single-Site Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: This research trial contributes to the evidence for occupational therapy service delivery in intensive care settings. OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of a trial to evaluate the impact of early enhanced occupational therapy on mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care. DESIGN: Single-site assessor-blinded randomized controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: Level 5 8-bed adult medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) at Logan Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 30 mechanically ventilated patients randomly allocated to two groups. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We compared standard care with enhanced occupational therapy with outcomes measured at discharge from the ICU, hospital discharge, and 90 days post randomization. The primary outcome measure was the FIM®. Secondary outcomes included the Modified Barthel Index (MBI); Montreal Cognitive Assessment; grip strength, measured using a dynamometer; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (Version 2). The intervention group received daily occupational therapy, including cognitive stimulation, upper limb retraining, and activities of daily living. Data were analyzed using independent groups t tests and effect sizes. RESULTS: Measures and procedures were feasible. A significant difference was found between groups on FIM Motor score at 90 days with a large effect size (p = .05, d = 0.76), and MBI scores for the intervention group approached significance (p = .051) with a large effect size (d = 0.75) at 90 days. Further moderate to large effect sizes were obtained for the intervention group for cognitive status, functional ability, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This trial demonstrated that occupational therapy is feasible and beneficial in the ICU. Criteria to progress to a full-scale randomized controlled trial were met. This study contributes to embedding ongoing consistency of practice and scope of service delivery for occupational therapy in this field. What This Article Adds: Occupational therapists should be considered core team members in the critical care-ICU, with funding to support ongoing service provision and optimization of patient outcomes based on effective and feasible service delivery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".