Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Reprint of Recovery programme for ICU survivors has no effect on relatives' quality of life: Secondary analysis of the RAPIT-study

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Trends and recommendations for critical care nursing research in the Nordic countries: Triangulation of review and survey data

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Patients' perceptions of an intensive care unit diary written by relatives: A hermeneutic phenomenological study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Trends and recommendations for critical care nursing research in the Nordic countries: Triangulation of review and survey data

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Long-term patient-important outcomes after septic shock: a protocol for 1-year follow-up of the CLASSIC-trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. International perspectives on the pediatric nurse practitioner role

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: Relatives of intensive care patients are at risk of developing symptoms of anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress resulting in reduced health-related quality of life. Recovery programmes for patients have been implemented, but their effect on relatives is uncertain.

AIM: To determine whether relatives benefit from a recovery programme intended for intensive care survivors.

RESEARCH DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial of 181 adult relatives: intervention group (n = 87), control group (n = 94).

SETTING: Ten intensive care units in Denmark.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Sense of coherence (SOC), and symptoms of anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress, compared to standard care at 12 months after intensive care discharge.

RESULTS: No difference in HRQOL between groups was observed at 12 months (mean difference in mental component summary score, 1.35 [CI 95%: -3.13; 5.82], p = 0.55; and physical component summery score, 1.86 [CI 95%: -1.88; 5.59], p = 0.33). No differences were found in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION: The recovery programme intended for intensive care survivors did not have an effect on the relatives. Future recovery programmes should be targeted to help both patient and family, and future research should be conducted on a larger scale to make conclusions with higher probability.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftIntensive and Critical Care Nursing
Vol/bind50
Sider (fra-til)111-117
Antal sider7
ISSN0964-3397
DOI
StatusUdgivet - feb. 2019

Bibliografisk note

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ID: 58616612