Incidence rate and risk factors for post-intensive care syndrome subtypes among critical care survivors three months after discharge: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of post-intensive care syndrome subtypes and their risk factors among intensive care unit survivors. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: This prospective observational cohort study assessed post-intensive care syndrome at three months after discharge in 475 survivors (median age of 62 years, 59.4 % male) admitted for more than 24 hours to 19 intensive care units. SETTING: 19 intensive care units at four university hospitals in Korea. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three months after discharge, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Posttraumatic Diagnosis Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Activities of Daily Living were used to evaluate post-intensive care syndrome. RESULTS: Participants exhibited eight subtypes of post-intensive care syndrome: post-intensive care syndrome free (50.3 %), impaired in physical (3.4 %), mental (13.5 %), cognitive (12.4 %), physical and mental (7.8 %), physical and cognitive (2.3 %), mental and cognitive (4.0 %) and all three domains (6.3 %). Age, unemployment, education, comorbidities, unplanned admission, longer stay, and place of discharge were risk factors for each domain. Age ≥ 65 years (OR 9.234, p < .001), female gender (OR = 5.143, p = .002), two or more comorbidities (OR = 8.701, p = .002), and discharge to an extended care facility (OR = 36.040, p < .001) were associated with increased probability of impairment in all three domains. CONCLUSION: The type with impaired in both mental and physical domains was the most prevalent in cases of co-occurrence. Discharge to an extended care facility was one of the most significant risk factor for the occurrence of each domain and intensity of post-intensive care syndrome. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses must promote prevention strategies by proactively evaluating intensive care unit survivors for post-intensive care syndrome risk factors. Additionally, it is necessary to raise healthcare providers' awareness of post-intensive care syndrome evaluation and management in extended care facilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".