↓ Skip to main content

Investigating risk factors for psychological morbidity three months after intensive care: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 6,554)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
34 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
25 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor
pinterest
1 Pinner

Citations

dimensions_citation
208 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
227 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
Investigating risk factors for psychological morbidity three months after intensive care: a prospective cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11677
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorothy M Wade, David C Howell, John A Weinman, Rebecca J Hardy, Michael G Mythen, Chris R Brewin, Susana Borja-Boluda, Claire F Matejowsky, Rosalind A Raine

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence of poor mental health and quality of life among survivors of intensive care. However, it is not yet clear to what extent the trauma of life-threatening illness, associated drugs and treatments, or patients' psychological reactions during intensive care contribute to poor psychosocial outcomes. Our aim was to investigate the relative contributions of a broader set of risk factors and outcomes than had previously been considered in a single study. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 157 mixed-diagnosis highest acuity patients was conducted in a large general intensive care unit (ICU). Data on four groups of risk factors (clinical, acute psychological, socio-demographic and chronic health) were collected during ICU admissions. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and quality of life were assessed using validated questionnaires at three months (n =100). Multivariable analysis was used. RESULTS: At follow-up, 55% of patients had psychological morbidity: 27.1% (95% CI: 18.3%, 35.9%) had probable PTSD; 46.3% (95% CI: 36.5%, 56.1%) probable depression, and 44.4% (95% CI: 34.6%, 54.2%) anxiety. The strongest clinical risk factor for PTSD was longer duration of sedation (regression coefficient = 0.69 points (95% CI: 0.12, 1.27) per day, scale = 0 to 51). There was a strong association between depression at three months and receiving benzodiazepines in the ICU (mean difference between groups = 6.73 points (95% CI: 1.42, 12.06), scale = 0 to 60). Use of inotropes or vasopressors was correlated with anxiety, and corticosteroids with better physical quality of life.The effects of these clinical risk factors on outcomes were mediated (partially explained) by acute psychological reactions in the ICU. In fully adjusted models, the strongest independent risk factors for PTSD were mood in ICU, intrusive memories in ICU and psychological history. ICU mood, psychological history and socio-economic position were the strongest risk factors for depression. CONCLUSIONS: Strikingly high rates of psychological morbidity were found in this cohort of intensive care survivors. The study's key finding was that acute psychological reactions in the ICU were the strongest modifiable risk factors for developing mental illness in the future. The observation that use of different ICU drugs correlated with different psychological outcomes merits further investigation. These findings suggest that psychological interventions, along with pharmacological modifications, could help reduce poor outcomes, including PTSD, after intensive care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 217 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 16%
Student > Master 28 12%
Other 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 60 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 14%
Psychology 27 12%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 1%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 67 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 322. 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 24 May 2020.
All research outputs
#104,434
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#38
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#463
of 192,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. 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 192,681 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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 99% of its contemporaries.