MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PP518 Topic: AS23–Rehabilitation: Early Mobilization/Interdisciplinary Care/Developmental Care/Other: IMPLEMENTING PAEDIATRIC EARLY REHABILITATION AND MOBILISATION DURING INTENSIVE CARE (PERMIT) PROGRAMME: A UNITED KINGDOM FEASIBILITY TRIAL.

2024· article· en· W4404041532 on OpenAlexaff
Barnaby R. Scholefield, Jennifer Menzies, Jennifer McAnuff, Joseph C. Manning, Richard Feltbower, Michelle Geary, S. J. Lockey, Rob Forsyth, Tim Rapley, Nicholas Read, Helen Winmill, Bogdana Zoica, K. Sykes, L. Skevington-Postles, Hannah Child, Norweeta G. Milburn, Fenella J. Kirkham

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationMobilizationNursingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims & Objectives: Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation (ERM) may improve outcomes for critically unwell or injured children. We aimed to assess 1) feasibility and acceptability of implementing a multidisciplinary designed and delivered, complex ERM programme named PERMIT, 2) recruitment and safe delivery of the programme to PICU patients. This was phase 3 of a multi-stage National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) funded feasibility study. Methods: United Kingdom PICU (n=3) non-randomised, un-blinded trial for patients aged 0-15 years with anticipated PICU length of stay greater than three days, with mixed-method process evaluation (June to Dec 2021). Programme implementation followed six key steps (see Figure 1). Outcomes: acuity assessment, ERM planning/delivery, adverse events and patient outcomes (validated tools). Process evaluation included qualitative (weekly progress meetings, interviews- health care professionals, parents/carers) and quantitative (staff survey) to assess feasibility and acceptability of the consent model and trial design.Results: All three sites implemented PERMIT and successfully recruited the 10-patient target. All patients had an acuity level scored, appropriate ERM activities planned and delivered. There were no severe adverse events. Through debriefs (n=48), survey responses (n=118) and interviews with health care professionals (n=13) and parents/carers (n=15) PERMIT purpose, tools and processes evaluated positively; however, all felt that it was challenging to deliver ERM on current resources. Conclusions: The PERMIT programme was successfully implemented and safely delivered in three diverse UK PICUs. Additional resource requirements are essential for wider evaluation and sustained implementation. Keywords: implementation science, Early Rehabilitation, Mobilisation, Paediatric Intensive Care

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207