SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2026
Well-being and sense of security of intubated patients in intensive care units: a patient co-constructed dedicated scale.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2026. 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.
- Making Comfort Visible or Making Patients Comfortable? Rethinking Structured Humanisation in Intensive Care.Nursing in critical care · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIntensive care unit (ICU) patients endure significant stress due to their critical condition, communication difficulties, and the hostile environment. Despite efforts to humanize ICUs, there is a lack of real-time assessment tools for patient well-being and sense of safety. The aim of this project was to develop a scale assessing the feeling of well-being and safety in real time among intubated patients.
methodsA systematic review was performed to identify study outcomes evaluating well-being and sense of security. Results were used to organize focus groups and explore patients’ experiences during their ICU stay. The scale was then developed via Delphi methodology by a patient-professional group. The scale was validated through patient interviews for face validity and implementation in a multicentric French cohort. Lastly, the scale was translated in English.
resultsThe systematic review included 137 articles. Focus groups (23 former patients and 5 relatives) highlighted communication challenges and the need for human support. Scale construction resulted in an initial 6-item pragmatic bedside tool. Face validation showed that the constructed scale was acceptable and led to refining the scale by changing item evaluation formats to a 4-stage Likert scale. Cohort validation, comprising 305 scale administrations (84 patients), indicated overall satisfaction and adequate completion rates. Psychometric analysis led to the removal of two items. A simplified 4-item scale (Comfort, Safety, Information, Trust) demonstrated improved reliability and coherence.
conclusionThe final scale provides a practical measure of patient well-being in ICUs and is usable in real time at the bedside.
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.