PRACTICE: Development of a Core Outcome Set for Trials of Physical Rehabilitation in Critical Illness.

Bronwen A Connolly, Matthew Barclay, Chantal Davies, Nicholas Hart, Natalie Pattison, Gordon Sturmey, Paula R Williamson, Dale M Needham, Linda Denehy, Bronagh Blackwood
{"title":"PRACTICE: Development of a Core Outcome Set for Trials of Physical Rehabilitation in Critical Illness.","authors":"Bronwen A Connolly, Matthew Barclay, Chantal Davies, Nicholas Hart, Natalie Pattison, Gordon Sturmey, Paula R Williamson, Dale M Needham, Linda Denehy, Bronagh Blackwood","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202406-581OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Findings from individual trials of physical rehabilitation interventions in critically ill adults have limited potential for meta-analysis and informing clinical decision-making because of the heterogeneity in selection and reporting of outcomes used for evaluation. <b>Objectives:</b> The objective of this study was to determine a core outcome set (COS) for use in all future trials evaluating physical rehabilitation interventions delivered across the critical illness continuum of recovery. <b>Methods:</b> An international, two-round, online, modified Delphi consensus process, following recommended standards, was conducted. Participants (<i>N</i> = 329) comprised three stakeholder groups-researchers, <i>n</i> = 58 (18%); clinicians, <i>n</i> = 247 (75%); and patients and caregivers, <i>n</i> = 24 (7%)-and represented 26 countries and nine healthcare professions. Participants rated the importance of a range of relevant outcomes. Outcomes included in the COS were those prioritized of \"critical importance\" by all three stakeholder groups. <b>Results:</b> Survey response rates were 88% (Round 1) and 91% (Round 2). From a total of 32 initial outcomes, the following outcomes reached consensus for inclusion in the COS: physical function, activities of daily living, survival, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, cognitive function, emotional and mental well-being, and frailty. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study developed a consensus-generated COS for future clinical research evaluating physical rehabilitation interventions in critically ill adults across the continuum of recovery. Ascertaining recommended measurement instruments for these core outcomes is now required to facilitate implementation of the COS.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":"1742-1750"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11622824/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202406-581OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Findings from individual trials of physical rehabilitation interventions in critically ill adults have limited potential for meta-analysis and informing clinical decision-making because of the heterogeneity in selection and reporting of outcomes used for evaluation. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine a core outcome set (COS) for use in all future trials evaluating physical rehabilitation interventions delivered across the critical illness continuum of recovery. Methods: An international, two-round, online, modified Delphi consensus process, following recommended standards, was conducted. Participants (N = 329) comprised three stakeholder groups-researchers, n = 58 (18%); clinicians, n = 247 (75%); and patients and caregivers, n = 24 (7%)-and represented 26 countries and nine healthcare professions. Participants rated the importance of a range of relevant outcomes. Outcomes included in the COS were those prioritized of "critical importance" by all three stakeholder groups. Results: Survey response rates were 88% (Round 1) and 91% (Round 2). From a total of 32 initial outcomes, the following outcomes reached consensus for inclusion in the COS: physical function, activities of daily living, survival, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, cognitive function, emotional and mental well-being, and frailty. Conclusions: This study developed a consensus-generated COS for future clinical research evaluating physical rehabilitation interventions in critically ill adults across the continuum of recovery. Ascertaining recommended measurement instruments for these core outcomes is now required to facilitate implementation of the COS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实践:为危重病物理康复试验制定核心结果集。
理论依据 由于在评估结果的选择和报告方面存在异质性,对成人重症患者进行身体康复干预的单项试验结果进行荟萃分析和为临床决策提供信息的潜力有限。目的 本研究的目的是确定一套核心结果(COS),供今后所有评估危重症患者康复过程中物理康复干预措施的试验使用。方法 按照推荐的标准,进行了一次国际性、两轮在线、改良德尔菲共识过程。参与者(人数=329)包括三个利益相关群体(研究人员,人数=58(18%);临床医生,人数=247(75%);患者和护理人员,人数=24(7%)),代表 26 个国家和 9 个医疗保健专业。参与者对一系列相关结果的重要性进行了评分。纳入 COS 的结果是被所有三个利益相关者群体列为 "至关重要 "的结果。结果 调查回复率为 88%(第一轮)和 91%(第二轮)。在总共 32 项初步结果中,以下结果达成共识,被纳入 COS:身体功能、日常生活活动、生存能力、与健康相关的生活质量、运动能力、认知功能、情感和心理健康以及虚弱。结论 本研究为今后评估重症成人身体康复干预措施的临床研究制定了一套共识性的 COS,适用于整个康复过程。现在需要确定这些核心结果的推荐测量工具,以促进 COS 的实施。本文根据知识共享署名 4.0 国际许可协议 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) 的条款开放获取和发布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Airway Remodeling in Cystic Fibrosis Is Heterogeneous. County Level Social Determinates of Health and Correlation with COPD Prevalence in the US. Lest a Smoky Haze of Doubt Suffocate Progress Towards Better Pulse Oximeters. Lung Function Recovery from Pulmonary Exacerbations Treated with Oral Antibiotics in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia. Trends in the Treatment of Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1