Rehabilitation needs, preferences, barriers, and facilitators of individuals with sepsis: a qualitative study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the rehabilitation needs, preferences, barriers, and facilitators of sepsis survivors. Methods: a caregiver of an individual with a past diagnosis of sepsis. We conducted semi-structured interviews on Zoom, guided by the COM-B Framework and transcribed interviews verbatim. Two reviewers conducted qualitative content analysis. Results: We included 22 participants. Participants identified the need for early and continued rehabilitation, including support for physical and cognitive health. They described barriers related to social isolation, finances, and lack of information on and accessibility to rehabilitation services. Participants reported that they preferred to participate in rehabilitation that included peer support, education for themselves and caregivers, and personalized services. Interview findings underscore the need to increase the accessibility of rehabilitation resources and the knowledge of sepsis survivors and their caregivers on the condition and the benefits of rehabilitation. Conclusion: We identified rehabilitation needs, preferences, barriers, and facilitators necessary to better support sepsis survivors in their recovery process. Future research should focus on tailoring strategies to improve the opportunity for rehabilitation for sepsis survivors and increasing the knowledge of sepsis in survivors and their caregivers to maximize participation in rehabilitation for individuals with sepsis.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it