The Lived Experience of Cardiac Arrest Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survival rates after cardiac arrest have steadily increased over the past few decades because of the adoption of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, public access to automated external defibrillators, and an increase in public education on how to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The lived experiences of post-cardiac arrest survival have been underexplored. The themes that resulted from the analysis in this scoping review can inform clinical practice and propose strategies to improve the patients' quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to map out qualitative literature that explores the lived experience of individuals who have survived cardiac arrest. METHOD: In this scoping review, the authors examined peer-reviewed qualitative studies identified in the PubMed, CINAHL, and MEDLINE databases. Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting a scoping study was followed. RESULTS: The search yielded 174 articles, with 16 meeting inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Initially, 14 articles were selected, and 2 additional articles were identified through references. Themes extracted from these 16 articles include the need for support and information, emotional challenges, and acceptance of a new reality. CONCLUSION: Cardiac arrest survivors often experience loss of control, vulnerability, and insecurity. These emotional changes can be significant and may include physical challenges, cognitive impairments, and psychological distress, which can cause individuals to reevaluate their perspectives on life and accept a new reality, potentially leading to changes in their future outlook.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".