Perceptions of patient education in spinal cord injury rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient education is a key part of spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation with the goal of preparing persons with SCI to meet life's daily challenges. The purpose of this study was to evaluate experiences of the patient education program from the patients' perspective. METHODS: The qualitative design of this study involved a semi-structured interview format to gather descriptive information relevant to the aspects of the patient education program identified to facilitate or impede learning. Twenty-two patients participated in the individual interviews. RESULTS: The framework that emerged from the analysis of the interview transcripts included a total of six main categories, two subcategories and two main themes. There were two central categories of Need to know and Information access and delivery that were influenced by categories of: Learning readiness, Learning affects, Problem exploration and Family involvement. The category of Information access and delivery included two subcategories labeled Resources and Learning strategies. From these categories the main themes of Learning partnership and Individuality were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This research provides valuable information from the patients' perspective that may be used to enhance patient education programs. The importance of incorporating principles of adult learning is highlighted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".