Cited by 72Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersCancer survivorship and care

What matters most to sepsis survivors: A qualitative analysis to identify specific health-related quality of life domains.

Open access
König, Christian, Matt, Bastian, Kortgen, Andreas, Turnbull, Alison E., Hartog, Christiane S.·2019·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Purpose It is unknown how sepsis survivors conceptualize health-related quality of life (HRQL). We aimed to identify important HRQL domains for this population.Methods A literature search was performed to inform an interview guide. Open-ended interviews were held with 15 purposefully sampled sepsis survivors. Interview transcripts were analyzed by interpretative phenomenological analysis to allow themes to develop organically. Resulting codes were reviewed by an independent expert. The preliminary list of domains was rated in a two-round Delphi consensus procedure with therapists and survivors.Results Eleven domains emerged as critically important: Psychological impairment, Fatigue, Physical impairment, Coping with daily life, Return to normal living, Ability to walk, Cognitive impairment, Self-perception, Control over one's life, Family support, and Delivery of health care. Sepsis survivors want a "normal life," to walk again, and to regain control without cognitive impairment. Family support is essential to overcome sepsis aftermaths.Conclusions Survivors described many HRQL domains which are not captured by the QoL instruments that have traditionally been used to study ICU survivorship (i.e., SF-36 and EQ-5D). Future studies of QoL in ICU survivors should consider using both a traditional instrument so that results are comparable to previous research, as well as a more holistic QoL measurement instrument like the WHOQOL-BREF.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-018-2028-8

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Key information from hospitalization is often missing on hospital discharge documentation.

    “Key information from hospitalization is often missing on hospital discharge documentation (615-618).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [618]

    The Results section describes one survivor’s difficult transition home after discharge, and Methods > Data Collection says medical data came from an electronic patient system (page numbers unavailable). Neither passage addresses whether hospitalization information is often missing from discharge documentation. Searches for discharge summaries, missing information, and discharge letters found no passage making that point. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Early administration of enteral nutrition in patients with sepsis and septic shock has potential physiologic advantages related to maintenance of gut integrity, prevention of intestinal permeability, dampening of the inflammatory response, and modulation of metabolic responses that may reduce insulin resistance.

    “The early administration of enteral nutrition in patients with sepsis and septic shock has potential physiologic advantages related to the maintenance of gut integrity and prevention of intestinal permeability, dampening of the inflammatory response, and modulation of metabolic responses that may reduce insulin resistance (529,530).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [530]

    The Methods section describes interviews with sepsis survivors, and the Results and Discussion concern health-related quality-of-life domains. Searches for early enteral nutrition, gut integrity, intestinal permeability, inflammation, and insulin resistance found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed physiologic advantages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Information on post-intensive care syndrome may be provided to only one in three ICU survivors.

    “Information on post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) may be provided to only one in three ICU survivors (550, 618).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [618]

    The Introduction and Discussion address ICU survivors’ health-related quality of life and post-ICU symptoms, but neither reports how often survivors receive information about PICS. Searches for PICS information and for a one-in-three proportion found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These outcomes were consistent with a 2019 qualitative analysis of health related quality of life domains identified by sepsis survivors.

    “These outcomes were consistent with a 2019 qualitative analysis of health related QoL domains identified by sepsis survivors [621].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
König, C., Matt, B., Kortgen, A., Turnbull, A. E., & Hartog, C. S.
Affiliations
  • Jena University Hospital (DE)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Hartog, Christiane S.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2018-10-22
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
637-647
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2896897272
Cited by
71
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6
FWCI
5.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01 E0 1002)
  • Rudolf Presl GmbH, Kreischa
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
sepsis survivors, health-related quality of life, psychological impairment, cognitive impairment, fatigue, physical impairment, family support, WHOQOL-BREF, SF-36, EQ-5D, quality of life instruments
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Fatigue, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Survivors, Sepsis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review