Participant Retention in Follow-Up Studies of Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors. [Review]

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Respiratory Care. 65(9):1382-1391, 2020 Sep.PMID: 32234765Institution: MedStar Union Memorial HospitalForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal Article | ReviewSubject headings: *Respiratory Distress Syndrome | *Respiratory Insufficiency | Critical Illness | Follow-Up Studies | Humans | Respiratory Distress Syndrome/th [Therapy] | Respiratory Insufficiency/et [Etiology] | Respiratory Insufficiency/th [Therapy] | SurvivorsYear: 2020Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 2003 - 2008, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2008ISSN:
  • 0020-1324
Name of journal: Respiratory careAbstract: BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of follow-up studies of acute respiratory failure survivors, there is need for a better understanding of participant retention and its reporting in this field of research. Hence, our objective was to synthesize participant retention data and associated reporting for this field.CONCLUSIONS: Participant retention was generally high but varied greatly across individual studies and time points, with 24% of studies reporting inadequate data to calculate retention rate. High participant retention is possible, but resources for optimizing retention may help studies retain participants. Improved reporting guidelines with greater adherence would be beneficial. Copyright (c) 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises.METHODS: Two screeners independently searched for acute respiratory failure survivorship studies within a published scoping review to evaluate subject outcomes after hospital discharge in critical illness survivors.RESULTS: There were 21 acute respiratory failure studies (n = 4,342 survivors) over 47 follow-up time points. Six-month follow-up (range: 2-60 months) was the most frequently reported time point, in 81% of studies. Only 1 study (5%) reported accounting for loss to follow-up in sample-size calculation. Retention rates could not be calculated for 5 (24%) studies. In 16 studies reporting on retention across all time points, retention ranged from 32% to 100%. Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were 85%, 89%, 82%, and 88%, respectively. Retention rates did not significantly differ by publication year, participant mean age, or when comparing earlier (3 months) versus each later follow-up time point (6, 12, or 24 months).All authors: Al-Ani A, Colantuoni E, Dinglas VD, Friedman LA, Needham DM, Nikooie R, Nunna K, Raman V, Vasishta S, Wadood ZOriginally published: Respiratory Care. 2020 Mar 31Fiscal year: FY2021Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2020-07-09
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 32234765 Available 32234765

Available online from MWHC library: 2003 - 2008, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2008

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of follow-up studies of acute respiratory failure survivors, there is need for a better understanding of participant retention and its reporting in this field of research. Hence, our objective was to synthesize participant retention data and associated reporting for this field.

CONCLUSIONS: Participant retention was generally high but varied greatly across individual studies and time points, with 24% of studies reporting inadequate data to calculate retention rate. High participant retention is possible, but resources for optimizing retention may help studies retain participants. Improved reporting guidelines with greater adherence would be beneficial. Copyright (c) 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises.

METHODS: Two screeners independently searched for acute respiratory failure survivorship studies within a published scoping review to evaluate subject outcomes after hospital discharge in critical illness survivors.

RESULTS: There were 21 acute respiratory failure studies (n = 4,342 survivors) over 47 follow-up time points. Six-month follow-up (range: 2-60 months) was the most frequently reported time point, in 81% of studies. Only 1 study (5%) reported accounting for loss to follow-up in sample-size calculation. Retention rates could not be calculated for 5 (24%) studies. In 16 studies reporting on retention across all time points, retention ranged from 32% to 100%. Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were 85%, 89%, 82%, and 88%, respectively. Retention rates did not significantly differ by publication year, participant mean age, or when comparing earlier (3 months) versus each later follow-up time point (6, 12, or 24 months).

English

Powered by Koha