PubMed چکیده/رکورد

Evaluating Meaningful Patient and Public Involvement in Intensive Care Research-A PEIRS-22 Survey.

استودیوی صوتی مقاله

پخش حرفه‌ای فارسی و انگلیسی

در حال بررسی نسخه‌های صوتی ذخیره‌شده…

صوت تولیدشده با هوش مصنوعی است. برای کاربرد علمی یا درمانی، متن و منبع اصلی را بررسی کنید.
خواندن هوشمند فارسی و انگلیسی در حال آماده‌سازی صداهای مرورگر…
تنظیم صدای طبیعی و سرعت

صداهایی که در نامشان «Natural»، «Neural» یا «Online» دیده می‌شود معمولاً طبیعی‌ترند. انتخاب صدا به صداهای نصب‌شده در ویندوز و مرورگر شما بستگی دارد.

چکیده اصلی

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recommended in health research to enhance relevance, quality and implementation of findings. In intensive care research, involving patients, family members and healthcare professionals may help ensure that research addresses outcomes that are meaningful to those affected by critical illness. AIM: This study aimed to assess the level of meaningful PPI engagement during the development of a core outcome set (COS) for general intensive care unit (ICU) patients in Denmark. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey using the Danish version of the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) was conducted between December 2024 and January 2025. We invited all members (patients, family, healthcare professionals and researchers) of five research panels, established in 2021 to support COS development across Danish university hospitals (N = 46). PEIRS-22 total scores range from 1 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater meaningful engagement (scores ≥ 70.1 were considered meaningful). Descriptive statistics, item-level analyses and non-parametric comparisons between participant roles were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven of 46 participants responded (80.4%): 27.0% (n = 10) were patients/family, 46.0% (n = 17) healthcare professionals and 27.0% (n = 10) researchers. The median PEIRS-22 total score was 78 (IQR 68-93), with 72.0% (n = 27) scoring ≥ 70.1. Engagement differed statistically significant by role (p = 0.004), with researchers reporting the highest scores (median 97), followed by patients/family (89), while healthcare professionals reported lower scores (74). CONCLUSION: PPI in COS development for general ICU patients was perceived as meaningful overall. However, differences across stakeholder groups and lower achievement of advanced engagement elements suggest opportunities to strengthen shared decision-making, role clarity and perceived relevance, particularly among healthcare professionals. Meaningful involvement of patients, families and clinicians may support the development of more patient-centred intensive care research and outcomes that better reflect the priorities of those affected by critical illness. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Meaningful PPI can help ensure that intensive care research reflects the priorities of patients and families. Clear roles, clinical relevance, and opportunities to influence decisions may strengthen engagement, particularly among healthcare professionals. Critical care nurses may play an important role in facilitating collaboration between patients, families, clinicians, and researchers.

متن کامل اصلی

متن در JumpToDate ذخیره نشده است.

برای بررسی دسترسی کتابخانه‌ای یا خرید، رکورد اصلی را باز کنید.

رفتن به منبع اصلی

کلیدواژه‌ها

critical illnesscross‐sectional studyengagementintensive carepatient and public involvement
در همین زیرشاخه

مقاله‌های مرتبط

PubMed2026

Bridging the Awareness-Action Gap in Disaster Preparedness: A Qualitative Study of Immersive Virtual Reality Learning Among Nursing Students.

BACKGROUND: Disasters increasingly challenge healthcare systems, highlighting the need to strengthen preparedness among future healthcare professionals. Although disaster risk awareness is important, it does not consistently translate into preparedness behaviours, reflecting the awareness-action gap. Immersive virtual reality (VR) may enhance experiential disaster learning, but how it influences preparedness processes remains insuffici…

PubMed2026

Comparison of the Validity and Reliability of Five Pressure Injury Risk Scales in Intensive Care.

BACKGROUND: The lack of consensus on the best pressure injury (PI) risk assessment tools demonstrates the need for further comparative research to identify the most effective options for intensive care unit (ICU) populations. AIM: This study compared the predictive validity and reliability of five PI risk assessment tools in adult ICU patients. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study was conducted with patients aged ≥ 18 years, admitt…

PubMed2026

Cross-Sectional Survey of Critical Care Provision in Ministry of Health Hospitals in Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Critical care is an essential component of universal health care; however, its provision in low- and middle-income countries remains poorly understood. Although Zambia has expanded critical care services over the last 15 years, national evidence regarding workforce capacity, infrastructure and service provision remains limited. AIMS: To evaluate critical care workforce, service provision and patient case mix across Ministry…

PubMed2026

Electrical Impedance Tomography-Guided Precision Nursing in an Older Patient With Septic Shock and ARDS: A Case Report.

Septic shock complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) presents a fundamental therapeutic conflict: shock demands aggressive fluid resuscitation, whereas lung protection requires fluid restriction and a negative fluid balance. We report the precision nursing management of a 79-year-old patient with septic shock, ARDS and MODS who received invasive mechanical ventilation and…