MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985954747 · doi:10.1080/09638280500494744

Perceptions of patient education in spinal cord injury rehabilitation

2006· article· en· W1985954747 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura May, Laura May, Rene Day, Sharon Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsRehabilitationQualitative researchPerspective (graphical)General partnershipPatient educationSpinal cord injuryPerceptionMedical educationMedicinePsychologyContent analysisNursingPhysical therapySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207