ArticleCritical care science2026
Perceptions of intensive care unit health care professionals in Brazil regarding postintensive care syndrome: a survey study.
Article in Critical care science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- To: Perceptions of intensive care unit health care professionals in Brazil regarding postintensive care syndrome: a survey study.Critical care science · 2026Article
- Reply to: Perceptions of intensive care unit health care professionals in Brazil regarding postintensive care syndrome: a survey study.Critical care science · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the perceptions of intensive care unit health care professionals in Brazil regarding postintensive care syndrome and the importance attributed to it by individuals and institutions.
methodsA web-based survey was conducted among intensive care unit professionals across all five Brazilian geopolitical regions. The questionnaire was used to collect demographic and professional data and to explore participants' perceptions of postintensive care syndrome, including a focus on patient/family-centered outcomes and long-term intensive care unit consequences.
resultsA total of 1,527 intensive care unit professionals responded, 61.3% of whom were women. The responses represented 12 professional categories, including physicians (51.1%), physiotherapists (16.9%), nurses (12.7%), and psychologists (5.8%). Among the participants, 50.4% had training or certification in critical care, and 59.9% had more than five years of experience. However, 24% had never heard of postintensive care syndrome. Awareness was significantly higher among those with specialized training (85.2% versus 66.6%; p < 0.001). Only 26.4% reported that their institutions had protocols for postintensive care syndrome assessment before hospital discharge. A significant difference emerged between individual and institutional priorities regarding patient/family-centered outcomes and postintensive care unit care (p < 0.001). In 60% of the cases, intensive care unit teams were not involved in patients' hospital discharge.
conclusionDespite moderate awareness of postintensive care syndrome among intensive care unit professionals, there is a considerable gap between staff and the institutional prioritization of postintensive care unit care in Brazil. This highlights the need to increase awareness and develop structured postintensive care unit care protocols, ensuring improved long-term outcomes for intensive care unit patients and their families.
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.