ArticleCritical care explorations2023
Older Adults' Perspectives on Screening for Cognitive Impairment Following Critical Illness: Pre-Implementation Qualitative Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Best Practices for Optimizing Recovery from Sepsis; Results of an Expert Panel.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Screening for cognitive impairment following ICU discharge is recommended but not part of routine care. We sought to understand older adults' perspectives on screening for cognitive impairment following an ICU admission to inform the design and delivery of a cognitive screening intervention.
designQualitative study using semi-structured interviews. SUBJECTS: Adults 60 years and older within 3 months of discharge from an ICU in an academic health system.
interventionsInterviews were conducted via telephone, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. All transcripts were coded in duplicate. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Codes were organized into themes and subthemes inductively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsWe completed 22 interviews. The mean age of participants was 71 ± 6 years, 14 (63.6%) were men, 16 (72.7%) were White, and 6 (27.3%) were Black. Thematic analysis was organized around four themes: 1) receptivity to screening, 2) communication preferences, 3) information needs, and 4) provider involvement. Most participants were receptive to cognitive screening; this was influenced by trust in their providers and prior experience with cognitive screening and impairment. Participants preferred simple, direct, compassionate communication. They wanted to understand the screening procedure, the rationale for screening, and expectations for recovery. Participants desired input from their primary care provider to have their cognitive screening results placed in the context of their overall health, because they had a trusted relationship, and for convenience.
conclusionsParticipants demonstrated limited understanding of and exposure to cognitive screening but see it as potentially beneficial following an ICU stay. Providers should use simple, straightforward language and place emphasis on expectations. Resources may be needed to assist primary care providers with capacity to provide cognitive screening and interpret results for ICU survivors. Implementation strategies can include educational materials for clinicians and patients on rationale for screening and recovery expectations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.