Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Community Reintegration after Spinal Cord Injury: A Critical Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A spinal cord injury (SCI) significantly affects an individual's return to and participation in community living. The goal of SCI rehabilitation is to enable an individual to reintegrate into community life; however, limited knowledge exists regarding the variables that facilitate or impede community reintegration. Among existing studies, few have been critically appraised to evaluate the quality of evidence. The review objectives are 3-fold: (1) to critically appraise the recently published literature regarding community integration for people with spinal cord injury; (2) to summarize the best evidence with a goal of translating knowledge into clinical practice; and (3) to provide recommendations for how the field can best be advanced in the most scientifically rigorous manner. Of the articles reviewed, 31 met specific inclusion criteria; 8 were of high methodological quality and 23 were of moderate to low methodological quality. Most of the reviewed articles were classified as level III (moderate evidence). Barriers to community reintegration included pain, inaccessible environments, financial constraints, and poor health. Facilitators included social support, internal locus of control, employment, and accessible transportation and housing. This article highlights the need for further well-designed studies to contribute to the understanding of community reintegration and facilitate the translation of knowledge to inform best practice guidelines in SCI rehabilitation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".