Observational studyCritical care explorations2026
Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors' Perspectives on Patient-Centered Communication: A Mixed Methods Study.
Observational study in Critical care explorations, 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
importanceMany acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors develop psychiatric sequelae. Inpatient psychologic distress is an important risk factor.
objectivesEvaluate ARF survivors' perspectives on patient-centered communication and its relationship to the inpatient psychologic experience. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsA mixed methods prospective observational study involving one survey and a semi-structured interview administered within 6 weeks of discharge to ARF survivors from two hospitals in the same system (August 2024 to December 2025). ARF was defined as greater than or equal to 24 hours of mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. Fifty-six survivors were enrolled; 20 participated in interviews. Twenty-four survivors (43%) were male, 28 survivors (50%) were identified as Black or African American, 25 survivors (45%) were White, and three survivors (5%) were Hispanic. ARF was most commonly due to respiratory (50%), cardiovascular (23%), or gastrointestinal (7%) disease. Forty-three participants (77%) were mechanically ventilated. ANALYSIS: Qualitative interviews were analyzed using grounded theory. Quantitative measures included the "Heard and Understood" (H&U) measure, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Events-6 Scale, a 0-100 visual analog scale measuring perceived health, and the EuroQol-5 dimension quality of life measure. Associations between H&U measure responses and mental health outcomes were tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests.
resultsPatient-centered communication was characterized by meaningful interpersonal relationships, transparent and responsive communication, effective healthcare dynamics, and timely care. Communication perceived as patient-centered improved psychologic well-being, uncertainty tolerance, and engaged shared decision-making. Twenty-one of 56 (38%) participants felt "completely" H&U. Those who did had lower anxiety (4 [1-6] vs. 7 [5-10]; p < 0.01) and depression (6 [5-10] vs. 10 [7-13]; p = 0.02) scores, greater perceived health (80 [70-90] vs. 60 [43-78]; p < 0.01), and greater health-related quality of life (0.84 [0.62-0.94] vs. 0.55 [0.29-0.72]; p < 0.01).
conclusionsPatient-centered communication may improve psychologic well-being in ARF survivors while admitted and after discharge.
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.