MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413105205 · doi:10.1007/s00134-025-08072-z

What measures have been used to explore the outcomes of family members of critically ill patients: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4413105205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Brown, Peter Hartley, Faye Forsyth, Leanne M. Boehm, Graham Martin, Isla Kuhn, Natalie Pattison, Bronwen Connolly, Nazir Lone, Valerie Danesh, Joanne McPeake

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreTHIS Institute, University of CambridgeHomerton College, University of CambridgeNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLPsycINFOObservational studyMEDLINEQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationFamily medicineSocial supportMeta-analysisCohort studyPsychological interventionPsychiatryNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Family members of critically ill patients are known to experience short and longer term challenges, including emotional and social problems. To undertake robust future interventional research to support this cohort, we undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the measures used in family outcome research to date. DESIGN: Scoping review. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science (core collection) for articles published between 2000 and 2024 which examined the outcomes of family members of critically ill patients. Data on outcome measures, study design, and population characteristics were extracted from eligible studies. RESULTS: We reviewed 9873 abstracts and identified 388 eligible unique family member cohorts. Across these studies, there were 59 (15.2%) randomised control trials, 287 (74.0%) observational cohorts, 8 (2.1%) quality improvement programmes, and 34 (8.8%) non-randomised controlled interventional studies. Most research was undertaken in USA, Canada, and Europe (n = 264, 67.5%). A total of 218 different outcomes measures were used across the studies included. In this review, 345 (89%) studies measured emotional or psychological outcomes, 85 (22%) measured family experience outcomes, 65 (17%) measured general functional status, quality of life or well-being outcomes, 35 (9%) measured environmental or social outcomes, and 10 (3%) measured cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 388 studies which reported the outcomes of family members of critically ill patients. Over 200 different outcomes measures were utilised, exploring conceptual domains such as quality of life as well as psychological and social outcomes. The majority of studies were observational in nature with variable follow-up timelines. This review has highlighted that a core outcome measure set is essential to enable reliable, robust, and comparable interventional research in this area.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.193
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.193
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0310.029
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care MedicineSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207