Development of a cognitive rehabilitation intervention to support patients during and after intensive care admission: a stakeholder-informed study

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Patients who survive critical illness and intensive care unit (ICU) admission often experience long-lasting physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments. Cognitive impairments are common and may persist well beyond ICU discharge. Few structured interventions address these impairments across the care continuum, from the ICU to post-discharge recovery. This gap informed the development of a stakeholder-driven cognitive rehabilitation intervention. The aim was to develop a cognitive rehabilitation intervention for critically ill patients that bridges the period from ICU admission to post-discharge recovery. The intervention was developed using a multiphase process guided by the 2021 Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions and reported in line with the GUIDED and TIDieR checklists. Stakeholder input was gathered through: (1) a workshop (n = 11) to identify end-user needs; (2) a three-round Delphi process (n = 39) to prioritise interventions using a seven-point Likert scale; and (3) expert consultations to refine selected components. Qualitative data from the workshop and open-ended Delphi responses were analysed thematically, while quantitative analysis identified consensus, defined a priori as ≥80% agreement on importance. The process generated a range of proposed interventions, including both novel and established elements. Interventions reaching stakeholder consensus were further reviewed by experts for clinical relevance and feasibility. Two prototype interventions were selected: (1) a Mindfulness-based intervention and (2) a Brain Training intervention. This study outlines a stakeholder-informed process for developing a cognitive rehabilitation intervention tailored to ICU patients across the care continuum. The co-design approach improved contextual fit and clinical applicability. These findings support the planned feasibility evaluation of the proposed interventions. The overall research study received ethics approval, while formal ethics committee approval was not required for the workshop and Delphi activities under Danish legislation (osf.io/5a4xq).

This publication has 64 references indexed in Scilit: