ArticleJournal of intensive care2026
Factors influencing the acceptability of remote multicomponent rehabilitation versus standard care following critical illness: a theory-informed qualitative study embedded within the iRehab trial.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdults who survive critical illness requiring mechanical ventilation frequently experience prolonged physical, psychological, and social difficulties following discharge, yet access to structured recovery support remains variable. This study explored how ICU survivors and staff perceived the acceptability of a remote multicomponent rehabilitation programme versus standard care following discharge from critical care.
methodsA theory-informed qualitative interview study was conducted, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. ICU survivors who received either remote multicomponent rehabilitation or standard care, alongside staff involved in delivery, were purposively sampled from a pragmatic UK trial (iRehab) across 24 hospital sites. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using framework analysis. Thirty-five ICU survivors and six staff members participated in interviews conducted between January 2023 and June 2025.
resultsEight inter-related themes captured the factors shaping acceptability during recovery after ICU discharge. Participants who received remote multicomponent rehabilitation generally found it acceptable, as it provided structure, continuity, and support for confidence-building and self-management. In contrast, standard care was often experienced as lacking coordination and follow-up, leaving individuals to navigate recovery with limited support. However, acceptability was not experienced in the same way by all participants. Digital delivery and optional components, such as peer support, were valued by many but not by everyone, depending on readiness, context, and capability.
conclusionsRemote multicomponent rehabilitation was valued for its structure, continuity, and support, while standard care was often experienced as lacking these features. Acceptability of support was shaped by how well it aligned with survivors' needs and contexts. These findings support the integration of structured, flexible rehabilitation pathways into post-ICU care. Trial registration ISRCTN11266403; registered 26 July 2022.
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.