Remote multicomponent rehabilitation compared to standard care for survivors of critical illness after hospital discharge (iRehab): a protocol for a randomised controlled assessor-blind clinical and cost-effectiveness trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The consequences of critical illness can be substantial and multifactorial, encompassing physical deconditioning, mental health impairments, fatigue, and declines in health-related quality of life. We hypothesise that for people discharged after intensive care unit (ICU) for a critical illness, a six-week remote multicomponent rehabilitation intervention improves health-related quality of life, physical function, fatigue, mood, and other health-related outcomes after eight weeks, compared to standard care. Methods: This is a pragmatic, randomised controlled, open-label, assessor blind, multicentre, clinical and cost effectiveness trial with internal pilot and embedded process evaluation. Recruitment will take place in NHS hospitals across the UK. Adults (n=428: control n= 197; intervention: n=231) within 12 weeks of discharge from hospital following an ICU admission for critical illness, requiring mechanical ventilation ≥48hours will be recruited.The intervention is a six week multicomponent, structured, rehabilitation programme, delivered remotely by a trained intervention team. The intervention includes four components: weekly symptom management; targeted exercise; psychological support, and peer support and information. The control group will receive standard NHS care.The primary outcome is Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at eight weeks post-randomisation measured using the EQ-5D-5L. Secondary outcomes are: HRQoL (six months), physical function, fatigue, illness perceptions anxiety and depression, healthcare resource use at eight weeks and six months and intervention acceptability. Conclusions: This trial will test a centrally delivered mulitcomponent rehabilitation intervention for survivors of critical illness, irrespective of geographic location or critical illness diagnosis. Trial registration: The trial is registered (04.07.2022) with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register ISRCTN11266403 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11266403.
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 | 0.055 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.012 |
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".