Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36053640›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2022

Early mobilisation and rehabilitation in the PICU: a UK survey.

Jacqueline Y Thompson, Julie C Menzies, Joseph C Manning, Jennifer McAnuff, Emily Clare Brush, Francesca Ryde, Tim Rapley, Nazima Pathan, Stephen Brett, David J Moore and 10 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Provision of physiotherapy services for children in intensive care units in Uganda: A descriptive study.The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Sedation in Critically Ill Children.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Early Mobilization in Pediatric Critical Care: Exploring the Gap Between Theory and Practice in Saudi Arabia.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Jacqueline Y ThompsonInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9775-361X
Julie C MenziesDepartment of Paediatric Intensive Care, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Joseph C ManningNottingham Children's Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6077-4169
Jennifer McAnuffPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1636-0049
Emily Clare BrushInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Francesca RydeInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Tim RapleyNorthumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4836-4279
Nazima PathanDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7656-9453
Stephen BrettDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK.
David J MooreInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, England.
Michelle GearyDepartment of Child Health, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Gillian A ColvillePaediatric Psychology Service, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8530-2822
Kevin P MorrisBirmingham Women's & Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Roger Charles ParslowPaediatric Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Richard G FeltbowerUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Sophie LockleyBirmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Fenella J KirkhamNeurosciences Unit, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Rob J ForsythInstitute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5657-4180
Barnaby R ScholefieldInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK b.scholefield@bham.ac.uk.
PERMIT Collaborators, Paediatric Critical Care Society Study-Group (PCCS-SG)
University of Birmingham · GBBirmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GBNorthumbria University · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBBirmingham Children's Hospital · GBImperial College London · GBNewcastle University · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSt George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand the context and professional perspectives of delivering early rehabilitation and mobilisation (ERM) within UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs).

designA web-based survey administered from May 2019 to August 2019.

settingUK PICUs.

participantsA total of 124 staff from 26 PICUs participated, including 22 (18%) doctors, 34 (27%) nurses, 28 (23%) physiotherapists, 19 (15%) occupational therapists and 21 (17%) were other professionals.

resultsKey components of participants' definitions of ERM included tailored, multidisciplinary rehabilitation packages focused on promoting recovery. Multidisciplinary involvement in initiating ERM was commonly reported. Over half of respondents favoured delivering ERM after achieving physiological stability (n=69, 56%). All age groups were considered for ERM by relevant health professionals. However, responses differed concerning the timing of initiation. Interventions considered for ERM were more likely to be delivered to patients when PICU length of stay exceeded 28 days and among patients with acquired brain injury or severe developmental delay. The most commonly identified barriers were physiological instability (81%), limited staffing (79%), sedation requirement (73%), insufficient resources and equipment (69%), lack of recognition of patient readiness (67%), patient suitability (63%), inadequate training (61%) and inadequate funding (60%). Respondents ranked reduction in PICU length of stay (74%) and improvement in psychological outcomes (73%) as the most important benefits of ERM.

conclusionERM is gaining familiarity and endorsement in UK PICUs, but significant barriers to implementation due to limited resources and variation in content and delivery of ERM persist. A standardised protocol that sets out defined ERM interventions, along with implementation support to tackle modifiable barriers, is required to ensure the delivery of high-quality ERM.

Indexed as

Early AmbulationIntensive Care Units, PediatricChildHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomepidemiologyrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID36053640
PMCPMC9185558
OpenAlexW4281679392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.