Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Factors influencing the acceptability of remote multicomponent rehabilitation versus standard care following critical illness: a theory-informed qualitative study embedded within the iRehab trial

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Adults who survive critical illness requiring mechanical ventilation frequently experience prolonged physical, psychological, and social difficulties following discharge, yet access to structured recovery support remains variable. This study explored how ICU survivors and staff perceived the acceptability of a remote multicomponent rehabilitation programme versus standard care following discharge from critical care. Methods: A theory-informed qualitative interview study was conducted, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. ICU survivors who received either remote multicomponent rehabilitation or standard care, alongside staff involved in delivery, were purposively sampled from a pragmatic UK trial (iRehab) across 24 hospital sites. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using framework analysis. Thirty-five ICU survivors and six staff members participated in interviews conducted between January 2023 and June 2025. Results: Eight inter-related themes captured the factors shaping acceptability during recovery after ICU discharge. Participants who received remote multicomponent rehabilitation generally found it acceptable, as it provided structure, continuity, and support for confidence-building and self-management. In contrast, standard care was often experienced as lacking coordination and follow-up, leaving individuals to navigate recovery with limited support. However, acceptability was not experienced in the same way by all participants. Digital delivery and optional components, such as peer support, were valued by many but not by everyone, depending on readiness, context, and capability. Conclusions: Remote multicomponent rehabilitation was valued for its structure, continuity, and support, while standard care was often experienced as lacking these features. Acceptability of support was shaped by how well it aligned with survivors’ needs and contexts. These findings support the integration of structured, flexible rehabilitation pathways into post-ICU care. Trial registration ISRCTN11266403; registered 26 July 2022.

Original languageEnglish
Article number81
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Intensive Care
Volume14
Issue number1
Early online date26 Jul 2026
DOIs
Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - 25 Aug 2026

Bibliographical note

© 2026. The Author(s).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the sensitive and potentially identifiable nature of qualitative data but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant Reference Number: 132871). The views expressed are those of the authors and the funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit for publication.

Funder number
132871

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
      SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

    Keywords

    • Critical illness
    • Rehabilitation
    • Telemedicine
    • Patient acceptance of health care
    • Qualitative research

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Factors influencing the acceptability of remote multicomponent rehabilitation versus standard care following critical illness: a theory-informed qualitative study embedded within the iRehab trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this