ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026
Piloting an ICU follow-up clinic - qualitative process evaluation alongside a feasibility study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04186468 (Piloting an ICU Follow-up Clinic to Improve Health Related Quality of Life After a Prolonged Intensive Care Stay), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Piloting an ICU Follow-up Clinic to Improve Health Related Quality of Life After a Prolonged Intensive Care Stay
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have not demonstrated sufficient effects of intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up clinics on health-related quality of life. This may also be influenced by the design and implementation of these studies. Feasibility and context of such studies have yet to be sufficiently researched. It is therefore crucial to investigate these contextual factors. This study aimed to explore the experiences of patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals with both the randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the ICU follow-up clinic, to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and the study design from the perspectives of those involved.
methodsThis qualitative research was embedded in the process evaluation of a pilot RCT on an ICU follow-up clinic. We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with former ICU patients, relatives and the clinical study team who participated in the PINA study and used field notes from the clinical study team. Data analysis was carried out using qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe pilot RCT was well received by potential patients and their relatives, and the motivation to participate was high, as was the motivation of the clinical study team. The main benefits of the ICU follow-up clinic intervention named by participants were being taken seriously and receiving referrals that they would not typically get from a general practitioner. The offer of home visits for patients with long travel distances to the ICU follow-up clinic was highly appreciated.
conclusionsIt was feasible to integrate the perspectives of patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals within a pilot RCT on an ICU follow-up clinic. Across all stakeholder groups, the ICU follow-up clinic and the RCT trial design were considered acceptable and valuable, suggesting that such follow-up care meets patient needs and that a large-scale study appears feasible.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov US NLM, NCT04186468, Submission: 02/12/2019, Registration: 04/12/2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04186468 .
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.