IntroductionThe purpose of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of an exercise rehabilitation program commencing during ICU admission and continuing into the outpatient setting compared with usual care on physical function and health-related quality of life in ICU survivors.MethodsWe conducted a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. One hundred and fifty participants were stratified and randomized to receive usual care or intervention if they were in the ICU for 5 days or more and had no permanent neurological insult. The intervention group received intensive exercises in the ICU and the ward and as outpatients. Participants were assessed at recruitment, ICU admission, hospital discharge and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up. Physical function was evaluated using the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (primary outcome), the Timed Up and Go Test and the Physical Function in ICU Test. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Short Form 36 Health Survey, version 2 (SF-36v2) and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument. Data were analyzed using mixed models.ResultsThe a priori enrollment goal was not reached. There were no between-group differences in demographic and hospital data, including acuity and length of acute hospital stay (LOS) (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score: 21 vs 19; hospital LOS: 20 vs 24 days). No significant differences were found for the primary outcome of 6MWT or any other outcomes at 12 months after ICU discharge. However, exploratory analyses showed the rate of change over time and mean between-group differences in 6MWT from first assessment were greater in the intervention group.ConclusionsFurther research examining the trajectory of improvement with rehabilitation is warranted in this population.Trial registrationThe trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000776606.

As part of the validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument comparisons were made between five multiattribute utility (MAU) instruments, each purporting to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL). These were the AQoL, the Canadian Health Utilities Index (HUI) 3, the Finnish 15D, the EQ-5D (formerly the EuroQoL) and the SF6D (derived from the SF-36). The paper compares absolute utility scores, instrument sensitivity, and incremental differences in measured utility between different instruments predicted by different individuals. The AQoL predicted utilities are similar to those from the HUI3 and EQ-5D. By contrast the 15D and SF6D predict systematically higher utilities, and the differences between individuals are significantly smaller. There is some evidence that the AQoL has greater sensitivity to health states than other instruments. It is concluded that at present no single MAU instrument can claim to be the 'gold standard', and that researchers should select an instrument sensitive to the health states they are investigating. Caution should be exercised in treating any of the instrument scores as representing a trade-off between length of life and HRQoL.

loneliness, social connectedness, social isolation, social relationships, social support,

effect sizes, population norms, profile health status instruments, quality of life measurement, WHOQOL-Brèf,