MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2047050115 · doi:10.1097/01.htr.0000281835.77473.4c

International Programs and Perspectives

2007· article· en· W2047050115 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Lexell

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRehabilitationHealth careHealthcare systemPopulationWorld populationStrengths and weaknessesMedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyEnvironmental healthPhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important public health problem. Throughout the world, TBI is one of the leading causes of life-long disability. The impact on the injured person, his or her family, friends, as well as society, and the healthcare system is well known, and so is the need for prevention, efficient acute care, rehabilitation, and follow-up. This special issue brings together articles from 5 countries—Canada, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom—and provides a comprehensive insight into TBI rehabilitation within different healthcare systems around the world. Each article focuses on specific aspects of TBI rehabilitation, strengths and weaknesses, and future areas of interest as well as problems to address. In the first article, the Canadian system is described. Canada is the second largest country in the world with a population of only 31 million. The country has many similarities but it also differs substantially from its North American counterparts as it has a healthcare system based on principles of universal access to healthcare, making basic healthcare services available to all residents of the country. Even though TBI rehabilitation has developed greatly over the last 20 years in Canada, several areas of improvement are listed. Interestingly, many of them are similar to those listed in the other countries in this issue, emphasizing the similarities rather than the differences between TBI rehabilitation across the world. In the second article, the experiences from Denmark and the establishment of a national strategy for treatment and rehabilitation of TBI are presented. The vision was to create a system for tax-financed rehabilitation, centralized to 2 units, each with half the country as uptake area. The advantages gained by this centralization are described together with the results for the first 3 years, which indicate that outcome is improved. In the third article, TBI rehabilitation in Sweden is described. Demographics and injury characteristics of TBI in Sweden follow those of Europe in general. Several new developments, among them the decision to recommend that all rehabilitation departments in Sweden go through the accreditation process of the Commission of Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, are expected to lead to improved services. In the fourth article, the system in the Netherlands is presented. Awareness of the impact of TBI has grown rapidly in the last 15 years in the Netherlands, and initiatives to improve services have been taken. Cognitive rehabilitation is such an example, and since 1993, healthcare insurers have agreed to pay for cognitive rehabilitation programs. However, like those of many other countries, several issues that need to be resolved are also described. In the fifth and final article, TBI rehabilitation in United Kingdom is presented. Rehabilitation has grown over the last 20 years. Various actions, some fairly recent, have been taken by the UK Government, which, as is described, means that it is essentially the first time that rehabilitation has featured in any major policy development. At the same time, new funding arrangements pose a considerable threat for rehabilitation services as currently set up in the United Kingdom. This special issue intends to present and compare rehabilitation of persons with TBI in different parts of the world. It is our hope that the articles will broaden our knowledge and that they may serve as an inspiration for clinicians and researchers in their ambition to develop efficient TBI rehabilitation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,822
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,234

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,396
Écart entre enseignants0,327 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Head Trauma RehabilitationMême sujetTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchTravaux en français237 207