↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Guidelines for Family-Centered Care in the Neonatal, Pediatric, and Adult ICU

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
115 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1013 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1035 Mendeley
Title
Guidelines for Family-Centered Care in the Neonatal, Pediatric, and Adult ICU
Published in
Critical Care Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0000000000002169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judy E. Davidson, Rebecca A. Aslakson, Ann C. Long, Kathleen A. Puntillo, Erin K. Kross, Joanna Hart, Christopher E. Cox, Hannah Wunsch, Mary A. Wickline, Mark E. Nunnally, Giora Netzer, Nancy Kentish-Barnes, Charles L. Sprung, Christiane S. Hartog, Maureen Coombs, Rik T. Gerritsen, Ramona O. Hopkins, Linda S. Franck, Yoanna Skrobik, Alexander A. Kon, Elizabeth A. Scruth, Maurene A. Harvey, Mithya Lewis-Newby, Douglas B. White, Sandra M. Swoboda, Colin R. Cooke, Mitchell M. Levy, Elie Azoulay, J. Randall Curtis

Abstract

To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU. We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis, and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered ICU. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with the guideline development. The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. The systematic review search yielded 4,158 reports after deduplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low, and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice. These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 115 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 1,035 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 1033 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 162 16%
Other 90 9%
Researcher 90 9%
Student > Bachelor 86 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 6%
Other 222 21%
Unknown 322 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 298 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 239 23%
Social Sciences 31 3%
Psychology 30 3%
Arts and Humanities 9 <1%
Other 83 8%
Unknown 345 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 153. 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 19 September 2023.
All research outputs
#273,020
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#76
of 9,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,663
of 428,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#4
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 428,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.