↓ Skip to main content

Intensive care diaries to promote recovery for patients and families after critical illness: A Cochrane Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intensive care diaries to promote recovery for patients and families after critical illness: A Cochrane Systematic Review
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda J. Ullman, Leanne M. Aitken, Janice Rattray, Justin Kenardy, Robyne Le Brocque, Stephen MacGillivray, Alastair M. Hull

Abstract

To assess the effect of an intensive care unit (ICU) diary versus no ICU diary on patients, and their caregivers or families, during the patient's recovery from admission to an ICU. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PILOT; Web of Science Conference Proceedings, clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials. Studies evaluated the effectiveness of patient diaries, when compared to no ICU diary, for patients or family members to promote recovery after admission to ICU were included. Outcome measures for describing recovery from ICU included the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptomatology, health-related quality of life and costs. We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently reviewed titles for inclusion, extracted data and undertook risk of bias according to pre-specified criteria. We identified three eligible studies; two describing ICU patients (N=358), and one describing relatives of ICU patients (N=30). No study adequately reported on risk of PTSD as described using a clinical interview, family or caregiver anxiety or depression, health-related quality of life or costs. Within a single study there was no clear evidence of a difference in risk for developing anxiety (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.19) or depression (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19) in participants who received ICU diaries, in comparison to those that did not receive a patient diary. Within a single study there was no evidence of difference in median post-traumatic stress symptomatology scores (diaries 24, SD 11.6; no diary 24, SD 11.6) and delusional ICU memory recall (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.28) between the patients recovering from ICU admission who received patient diaries, and those who did not. One study reported reduced post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members of patients recovering from admission to ICU who received patient diaries (median 19; range 14-28), in comparison to no diary (median 28; range 14-38). Currently there is minimal evidence from RCTs of the benefits or harms of patient diaries for patients and their caregivers or family members. A small study has described their potential to reduce post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members. However, there is currently inadequate evidence to support their effectiveness in improving psychological recovery after critical illness for patients and their family members.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 235 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 40 17%
Student > Master 35 15%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Other 53 22%
Unknown 50 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 76 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 50 21%
Psychology 30 13%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 1%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 56 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,419,456
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#954
of 2,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,259
of 279,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#27
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.