Facilitating person-centred task-oriented training with a human-centred developed rehabilitation technology in neurorehabilitation
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background\nFor persons with central nervous system diseases (PwCNS) a person-centred task-\noriented rehabilitation approach seems important to regain or maintain functional\nability in daily life activities (ADL). However, rehabilitation services struggle to provide\nthis approach and to provide the optimal rehabilitation time of 6 hours per day.\nRehabilitation technology has proven to increase the person’s motivation and\nadherence to therapy. The use of rehabilitation technology may also be able to\nincrease rehabilitation time without decreasing the quality of therapy or increasing the\ntherapists’ workload.\nAim\nTo investigate the effect of additional person-centred task-oriented training with a\ncustomised rehabilitation technology on functional performance and ADL in PwCNS\nand whether individualised goals are more explicitly trained in the intervention group.\nMethods and materials\nA multicentre single-blinded randomised controlled trial was performed in PwCNS.\nThe control group received treatment-as-usual. The intervention group received\ntreatment-as-usual and additional training with a customised technology during 6\nweeks, 3x/week, 45min/session under supervision of a trained professional.\nAssessments were performed at baseline, after 3 and 6 weeks of training, and at 6\nweeks follow-up. The primary outcome measures were Wolf Motor Function Test,\nManual Ability Measure-36 (MAM-36) and Canadian Occupational Performance\nMeasure (COPM). Additionally, the trained and untrained goals of both groups were\ncompared to investigate whether the individualised goals were more explicitly trained\nin the intervention group.\nResults\nForty-five PwCNS (age 59.07 ± 16.42) performed the full protocol. Both the control\nand intervention group improved over time on the primary outcome measures, mainly\nduring the 6-week training period. Significant differences between control and\nintervention group were found regarding MAM-36 after 6 weeks of training in favour\nof the intervention group. In the control group, the distribution of untrained versus\ntrained COPM goals was about 50%. While in the intervention group, more than 85%\n\nof the COPM goals were implemented in the treatment-as-usual and additional\nintervention programme.\nConclusions\nAdditional training with a customised rehabilitation technology can enhance\ntreatment-as-usual and may facilitate a person-centred task-oriented approach in\nPwCNS. This intervention might be used to increase therapy time in the future but\nresearch into independent use by PwCNS is necessary.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
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 découle