Factors to consider when designing post-hospital interventions to support critical illness recovery: Systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of the Intensive Care Society Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI:10.1177/17511437241308674
Jonathan Stewart, Ellen Pauley, Danielle Wilson, Judy Bradley, Nigel Hart, Danny McAuley
{"title":"Factors to consider when designing post-hospital interventions to support critical illness recovery: Systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.","authors":"Jonathan Stewart, Ellen Pauley, Danielle Wilson, Judy Bradley, Nigel Hart, Danny McAuley","doi":"10.1177/17511437241308674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Survivors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission experience significant deficits in health-related quality of life due to long-term physical, psychological, and cognitive sequelae of critical illness, which may persist for many years. There has been a proliferation of post-hospital interventions in recent years which aim to support ICU-survivors, however there is currently limited evidence to inform optimal approach. We therefore aimed to synthesise factors which impacted the implementation of these interventions from the perspective of healthcare providers, patients, and their carers, and to compare different intervention designs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative evidence using four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science) which were searched from inception to May 2024. The extraction and synthesis of factors which impacted intervention implementation was informed by the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-seven studies were included, reporting on a range of interventions including follow-up clinics and rehabilitation programmes. We identified some overarching principles and specific intervention component and design factors which may support in the design of future strategies to improve outcomes for ICU survivors. For each intervention characteristic, various patient, staff, and setting factors were found to impact implementation. Considering how the intervention will rely on and integrate with existing outpatient and community resources is likely to be important.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review provides a framework to future research examining the optimal approach to supporting ICU survivor recovery following hospital discharge.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":" ","pages":"17511437241308674"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699563/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437241308674","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Survivors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission experience significant deficits in health-related quality of life due to long-term physical, psychological, and cognitive sequelae of critical illness, which may persist for many years. There has been a proliferation of post-hospital interventions in recent years which aim to support ICU-survivors, however there is currently limited evidence to inform optimal approach. We therefore aimed to synthesise factors which impacted the implementation of these interventions from the perspective of healthcare providers, patients, and their carers, and to compare different intervention designs.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative evidence using four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science) which were searched from inception to May 2024. The extraction and synthesis of factors which impacted intervention implementation was informed by the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

Results: Thirty-seven studies were included, reporting on a range of interventions including follow-up clinics and rehabilitation programmes. We identified some overarching principles and specific intervention component and design factors which may support in the design of future strategies to improve outcomes for ICU survivors. For each intervention characteristic, various patient, staff, and setting factors were found to impact implementation. Considering how the intervention will rely on and integrate with existing outpatient and community resources is likely to be important.

Conclusion: This review provides a framework to future research examining the optimal approach to supporting ICU survivor recovery following hospital discharge.

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
设计支持重症康复的院后干预措施时应考虑的因素:系统评价和定性证据综合
背景:重症监护室(ICU)入院的幸存者由于危重疾病的长期身体、心理和认知后遗症,可能持续多年,在健康相关生活质量方面存在显著缺陷。近年来,旨在支持重症监护病房幸存者的院后干预措施激增,然而,目前关于最佳方法的证据有限。因此,我们旨在从医疗保健提供者、患者及其护理人员的角度综合影响这些干预措施实施的因素,并比较不同的干预设计。方法:采用MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL和Web of Science 4个数据库,检索自建站至2024年5月的文献,进行系统回顾和定性证据综合。影响干预实施的因素的提取和综合由实施研究综合框架(CFIR)和干预描述和复制模板(TIDieR)检查表的领域提供信息。结果:纳入了37项研究,报告了一系列干预措施,包括随访诊所和康复计划。我们确定了一些总体原则和特定的干预成分和设计因素,这些因素可能支持未来策略的设计,以改善ICU幸存者的预后。对于每个干预特征,不同的患者、工作人员和环境因素会影响实施。考虑干预将如何依赖和整合现有门诊和社区资源可能是很重要的。结论:本综述为未来研究支持ICU幸存者出院后康复的最佳方法提供了一个框架。
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
Journal of the Intensive Care Society
Journal of the Intensive Care Society Nursing-Critical Care Nursing
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.
期刊最新文献
Predicting risk of maternal critical care admission in Scotland: Development of a risk prediction model. Management of traumatic brain injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome-What evidence exists? A scoping review. Psychological impact of an intensive care admission for COVID-19 on patients in the United Kingdom. Exploring perspectives of supporting the process of dying, death and bereavement among critical care staff: A multidisciplinary, qualitative approach. Factors to consider when designing post-hospital interventions to support critical illness recovery: Systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.
×
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