Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review

• Published in: Trauma surgery & acute care open 2020-11, Vol.5 (1), p.e000584
• Main Authors: Rawal, Himanshu, Young, Daniel L, Nikooie, Roozbeh, Al Ani, Awsse H, Friedman, Lisa Aronson, Vasishta, Sumana, Haut, Elliott R, Colantuoni, Elizabeth, Needham, Dale M, Dinglas, Victor D
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Age; Consent; critical care; Data collection; Intensive care; Mortality; Original Research; patient outcome assessment; Patients; Retention; surveys and questionnaires; Systematic review; Trauma; Trauma care
• ISSN: 2397-5776; 2397-5776
• DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2020-000584

BackgroundThe study aimed to synthesize participant retention-related data for longitudinal follow-up studies of survivors from trauma intensive care units (ICUs).MethodsWithin a published scoping review evaluating ICU patient outcomes after hospital discharge, two screeners independently searched for trauma ICU survivorship studies.ResultsThere were 11 trauma ICU follow-up studies, all of which were cohort studies. Twelve months (range: 1–60 months) was the most frequent follow-up time point for assessment (63% of studies). Retention rates ranged from 54% to 94% across time points and could not be calculated for two studies (18%). Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 75%, 81%, and 81%, respectively. Mean patient age (OR 0.85 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99, p=0.036), percent of men (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.10, p=0.002), and publication year (OR 0.89 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, p=0.007) were associated with retention rates. Early (3-month) versus later (6-month, 12-month) follow-up time point was not associated with retention rates.DiscussionPooled retention rates were >75%, at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month time points, with wide variability across studies and time points. There was little consistency with reporting participant retention methodology and related data. More detailed reporting guidelines, with better author adherence, will help improve reporting of participant retention data. Utilization of existing research resources may help improve participant retention.Level of evidenceLevel III: meta-analyses (post-hoc analyses) of a prior scoping review.