Digital Graphic Follow-up Tool (Rehabkompassen) for Identifying Rehabilitation Needs Among People After Stroke: Randomized Clinical Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of disability among adults, with heavy social and economic burden worldwide. A cost-effective solution is urgently needed to facilitate the identification of individual rehabilitation needs and thereby provide tailored rehabilitations to reduce disability among people who have had a stroke. A novel digital graphic follow-up tool Rehabkompassen has recently been developed to facilitate capturing the multidimensional rehabilitation needs of people who have had a stroke. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a definitive trial to evaluate Rehabkompassen as a digital follow-up tool among people who have had a stroke in outpatient clinical settings. METHODS: This pilot study of Rehabkompassen was a parallel, open-label, 2-arm prospective, proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an allocation ratio of 1:1 in a single outpatient clinic. Patients who have had a stroke within the 3 previous months, aged ≥18 years, and living in the community were included. The trial compared usual outpatient visits with Rehabkompassen (intervention group) and without Rehabkompassen (control group) at the 3-month follow-up as well as usual outpatient visit with Rehabkompassen at the 12-month follow-up. Information on the recruitment rate, delivery, and uptake of Rehabkompassen; assessment and outcome measures completion rates; the frequency of withdrawals; the loss of follow-up; and satisfaction scores were obtained. The key outcomes were evaluated in both groups. RESULTS: In total, 28 patients (14 control, 14 Rehabkompassen) participated in this study, with 100 patients screened. The overall recruitment rate was 28% (28/100). Retention in the trial was 86% (24/28) at the 12-month follow-up. All participants used the tool as planned during their follow-ups, which provided a 100% (24/24) task completion rate of using Rehabkompassen and suggested excellent feasibility. Both patient- and physician-participants reported satisfaction with the instrument (19/24, 79% and 2/2, 100%, respectively). In all, 2 (N=2, 100%) physicians and 18 (N=24, 75%) patients were willing to use the tool in the future. Furthermore, modified Rankin Scale as the primary outcome and various stroke impacts as secondary outcomes were both successfully collected and compared in this study. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the high feasibility and adherence of the study protocol as well as the high acceptability of Rehabkompassen among patients who have had a stroke and physicians in an outpatient setting in comparison to the predefined criterion. The information collected in this feasibility study combined with the amendments of the study protocol may improve the future definitive RCT. The results of this trial support the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a large definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04915027; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04915027.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».