Study protocol for a multicenter investigation of reablement in Norway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reablement is a promising new rehabilitation model, which is being implemented in some Western countries to meet current and future needs for home-based services. There is a need for further investigation of the effects of reablement among community-dwelling adults in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. This study will investigate the effectiveness of reablement in home-dwelling adults compared with standard treatment in terms of daily activities, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, coping, mental health, use of health care services, and costs. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a multicenter controlled trial. In total, 44 Norwegian municipalities will participate, including eight municipalities as a control group. For three municipalities with two zones, one will be assigned to the control group and the other to the intervention group. The experimental group will be offered reablement and the control group standard treatment. The sample will comprise approximately 750 participants. People will be eligible if they are home-dwelling adults, understand Norwegian, and have functional decline. Participants will be assessed at baseline, and after 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome will be activity and participation measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Physical functioning will be measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery and health-related quality of life by the European Quality of Life Scale. Coping will be measured by the Sense of Coherence questionnaire and mental health by the Mental Health Continuum Short Form. Costs will be generated based on registered working hours in different professions. Data analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. Univariate analysis of covariance will be used to investigate differences between the groups at baseline and the end of intervention. The data will be organized into two levels using a multilevel structure, i.e., individuals and municipalities, which will be analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. The working hours data (panel data) will be analyzed with random mixed-effects regression models. The cost-effectiveness of reablement will be evaluated according to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and uncertainty will be explored via the bootstrap method. DISCUSSION: The findings will make an important contribution to knowledge of rehabilitation approaches for community-dwelling adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on October 24, 2014, identifier: NCT02273934 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.020 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".