Factors Affecting Length of Stay in Adult Outpatient Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify factors affecting length of stay (LOS) for adults participating in outpatient physical or occupational therapy programmes. METHOD: A scoping review of the literature was conducted using the Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane Library databases. RESULTS: A total of 19 articles were retained from the search, and 2 additional articles were retrieved from grey literature (i.e., non-published sources). Personal factors affecting LOS are age and sex, both of which had inconsistent effects on LOS, and communication, language, physical, and cognitive difficulties, for which higher levels of function were generally associated with shorter LOS. Institutional factors affecting LOS were location, interdisciplinary communication, number of disciplines involved, and type of rehabilitation setting. Finally, two clinician-related factors-fewer treatment goals and a selection of evidence-informed treatment techniques-were associated with shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Research on factors affecting adult outpatient rehabilitation LOS is limited and inconsistent. A preliminary list of LOS factors was produced, but this topic should be further explored with the collaboration of researchers and clinical institutions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".