A rehabilitation intervention to promote physical recovery following intensive care: a detailed description of construct development, rationale and content together with proposed taxonomy to capture processes in a randomised controlled trial.

Background: increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause on going disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland). Methods: the intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development. Results: the final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions. Conclusions: the MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.

Interactive support effects on career agency and occupational engagement among young adults.

The PIC model by Gati and Asher describes three career decision making stages: pre-screening, in-depth exploration, and choice of career options. We consider the role that three different forms of support (general career support by parents, emotional/instrumental support, and informational support) may play for young adults in each of these three decision-making stages. The authors further propose that different forms of support may predict career agency and occupational engagement, which are important career decision precedents. In addition, we consider the role of personality traits and perceptions (decision-making window) on these two outcomes. Using an online survey sample (N = 281), we found that general career support was important for career agency and occupational engagement. However, it was the combination of higher general career support with either emotional/instrumental support or informational support that was found to lead to both greater career agency and higher occupational engagement. Personality also played a role: Greater proactivity also led to greater occupational engagement, even when there was little urgency for participants to make decisions (window of decision-making was wide open and not restricted). In practical terms, the findings suggest that the learning required in each of the three PIC processes (pre-screening, in-depth exploration, choice of career options may benefit when the learner has access to the three support measures.