Perceived barriers to mobility in the intensive care units of Singapore: The Patient Mobilisation Attitudes and Beliefs Survey for the intensive care units.

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Meredith T Yeung, Nicholas K Tan, Gideon Z Lee, Yuemian Gao, Chun Ju Tan, Clement C Yan
{"title":"Perceived barriers to mobility in the intensive care units of Singapore: The Patient Mobilisation Attitudes and Beliefs Survey for the intensive care units.","authors":"Meredith T Yeung,&nbsp;Nicholas K Tan,&nbsp;Gideon Z Lee,&nbsp;Yuemian Gao,&nbsp;Chun Ju Tan,&nbsp;Clement C Yan","doi":"10.1177/17511437221099791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prolonged bed rest and immobility in the intensive care units (ICU) increase the risk of ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and other complications. Mobilisation has been shown to improve patient outcomes but may be limited by the perceived barriers of healthcare professionals to mobilisation. The Patient Mobilisation Attitudes and Beliefs Survey for the ICU (PMABS-ICU) was adapted to assess perceived barriers to mobility in the Singapore context (PMABS-ICU-SG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 26-item PMABS-ICU-SG was disseminated to doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and respiratory therapists working in ICU of various hospitals across Singapore. Overall and subscale (knowledge, attitude, and behaviour) scores were obtained and compared with the clinical roles, years of work experience, and type of ICU of the survey respondents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 86 responses were received. Of these, 37.2% (32/86) were physiotherapists, 27.9% (24/86) were respiratory therapists, 24.4% (21/86) were nurses and 10.5% (9/86) were doctors. Physiotherapists had significantly lower mean barrier scores in overall and all subscales compared to nurses (p < 0.001), respiratory therapists (p < 0.001), and doctors (p = 0.001). A poor correlation (r = 0.079, p < 0.05) was found between years of experience and the overall barrier score. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall barriers score between types of ICU (χ2(2) = 4.720, p = 0.317).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In Singapore, physiotherapists had significantly lower perceived barriers to mobilisation compared to the other three professions. Years of experience and type of ICU had no significance in relation to barriers to mobilisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":"24 1","pages":"32-39"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9975807/pdf/10.1177_17511437221099791.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437221099791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Prolonged bed rest and immobility in the intensive care units (ICU) increase the risk of ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and other complications. Mobilisation has been shown to improve patient outcomes but may be limited by the perceived barriers of healthcare professionals to mobilisation. The Patient Mobilisation Attitudes and Beliefs Survey for the ICU (PMABS-ICU) was adapted to assess perceived barriers to mobility in the Singapore context (PMABS-ICU-SG).

Methods: The 26-item PMABS-ICU-SG was disseminated to doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and respiratory therapists working in ICU of various hospitals across Singapore. Overall and subscale (knowledge, attitude, and behaviour) scores were obtained and compared with the clinical roles, years of work experience, and type of ICU of the survey respondents.

Results: A total of 86 responses were received. Of these, 37.2% (32/86) were physiotherapists, 27.9% (24/86) were respiratory therapists, 24.4% (21/86) were nurses and 10.5% (9/86) were doctors. Physiotherapists had significantly lower mean barrier scores in overall and all subscales compared to nurses (p < 0.001), respiratory therapists (p < 0.001), and doctors (p = 0.001). A poor correlation (r = 0.079, p < 0.05) was found between years of experience and the overall barrier score. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall barriers score between types of ICU (χ2(2) = 4.720, p = 0.317).

Conclusion: In Singapore, physiotherapists had significantly lower perceived barriers to mobilisation compared to the other three professions. Years of experience and type of ICU had no significance in relation to barriers to mobilisation.

在新加坡重症监护病房感知障碍的流动性:重症监护病房的患者动员态度和信念调查。
目的:重症监护病房(ICU)长期卧床和不活动增加了ICU获得性虚弱(ICUAW)和其他并发症的风险。动员已被证明可以改善患者的预后,但可能受到卫生保健专业人员对动员的感知障碍的限制。ICU患者移动态度和信念调查(PMABS-ICU)适用于评估新加坡环境下移动的感知障碍(PMABS-ICU- sg)。方法:向新加坡各医院ICU的医生、护士、物理治疗师和呼吸治疗师发放共26项的PMABS-ICU-SG。获得总体和子量表(知识、态度和行为)得分,并与调查对象的临床角色、工作经验年数和ICU类型进行比较。结果:共收到86份问卷。其中,物理治疗师37.2%(32/86),呼吸治疗师27.9%(24/86),护士24.4%(21/86),医生10.5%(9/86)。与护士(p < 0.001)、呼吸治疗师(p < 0.001)和医生(p = 0.001)相比,物理治疗师在总体和所有亚量表上的平均屏障评分显著低于护士(p < 0.001)。经验年数与障碍总分的相关性较差(r = 0.079, p < 0.05)。不同ICU类型间障碍总分比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2(2) = 4.720, p = 0.317)。结论:在新加坡,与其他三个职业相比,物理治疗师在动员方面的感知障碍明显较低。经验年限和ICU类型与动员障碍无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Intensive Care Society
Journal of the Intensive Care Society Nursing-Critical Care Nursing
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信