MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

[Analysis of the current quality of life status and influencing factors of sepsis survivors in intensive care unit].

2024· article· en· W4394764984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cuiping Hao, Qiuhua Li, Cuicui Zhang, Fenfen Zhang, Yaqing Zhang, Lina Zhu, Huanhuan Cheng, Yinghao Li, Qinghe Hu

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studySeptic shockIntensive care unitEmergency medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive careSepsisPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the current situation and influencing factors of quality of life of septic patients in intensive care unit (ICU) after discharge, and to provide theoretical basis for clinical early psychological intervention and continuity of care. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted. The septic patients who were hospitalized in the department of critical care medicine of the Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University and discharged with improvement from January 1 to December 31, 2022 were selected as the research objects. The demographic information, basic diseases, infection site, vital signs at ICU admission, severity scores of the condition within 24 hours after ICU admission, various biochemical indexes, treatment process, and prognostic indexes of all the patients were recorded. All patients were assessed by questionnaire at 3 months of discharge using the 36-item short-form health survey scale (SF-36 scale), the activities of daily living scale (ADL scale), and the Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA scale). Multiple linear regression was used to analyze the factors influencing the quality of life of septic patients after discharge from the hospital. RESULTS: A total of 200 septic patients were discharged with improvement and followed up at 3 months of discharge, of which 150 completed the questionnaire. Of the 150 patients, 57 had sepsis and 93 had septic shock. The total SF-36 scale score of septic patients at 3 months of discharge was 81.4±23.0, and the scores of dimensions were, in descending order, role-emotional (83.4±23.0), mental health (82.9±23.6), bodily pain (82.8±23.3), vitality (81.6±23.2), physical function (81.4±23.5), general health (81.1±23.3), role-physical (79.5±27.0), and social function (78.8±25.2). There was no statistically significant difference in the total SF-36 scale score between the patients with sepsis and septic shock (82.6±22.0 vs. 80.7±23.6, P > 0.05). Incorporating the statistically significant indicators from linear univariate analysis into multiple linear regression analysis, and the results showed that the factors influencing the quality of life of septic patients at 3 months after discharge included ADL scale score at 3 months after discharge [β= 0.741, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 0.606 to 0.791, P < 0.001], length of ICU stay (β= -0.209, 95%CI was -0.733 to -0.208, P = 0.001), duration of mechanical ventilation (β= 0.147, 95%CI was 0.122 to 0.978, P = 0.012), total dosage of norepinephrine (β= -0.111, 95%CI was -0.044 to -0.002, P = 0.028), mean arterial pressure (MAP) at ICU admission (β= -0.102, 95%CI was -0.203 to -0.007, P = 0.036) and body weight (β= 0.097, 95%CI was 0.005 to 0.345, P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of life of patients with sepsis at 3 months after discharge is at a moderately high level. The influencing factors of the quality of life of patients with sepsis at 3 months after discharge include the ADL scale score at 3 months after discharge, the length of ICU stay, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the total dosage of norepinephrine, MAP at ICU admission and body weight, and healthcare professionals should enhance the treatment and care of the patients during their hospitalization based on the above influencing factors, and pay attention to early psychological intervention and continued care for such patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→