Who Receives Rehabilitation in Canadian Long-Term Care Facilities? A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the proportion of residents receiving occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) and the factors associated with receiving PT in long-term care (LTC) facilities across five provinces and one territory in Canada. METHODS: Using a population-based, retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data, the proportion of LTC facility residents in each province or territory receiving three different amounts (time and frequency) of PT, OT, or both before July 1, 2013, was calculated according to the Resource Utilization Groups-III rehabilitation classifications. Twenty-three variables from the Resident Assessment Instrument 2.0, such as age and cognition, were examined as correlates; those significant at p<0.01 were included in a multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Between 63.7% and 88.6% of residents did not receive any PT or OT; 0.8%-12.6% received both PT and OT; 5.8%-29.5% received an unspecified amount of PT; 1.9%-7.0% received 45 minutes or more of PT 3 days or more per week; and fewer than 1% received 150 minutes or more of PT on 5 or more days per week. Province, age, cognitive status, depression, clinical status, fracture, multiple sclerosis, and self-rated potential for improvement were associated with PT irrespective of time intensity. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of LTC residents receiving rehabilitation services varies across Canada and appears to be associated with physical impairments and the potential for improvement; older residents with cognitive impairment or mood disorders are less likely to receive rehabilitation services. Future recommendations should consider what is driving the patterns of service use, determine whether the resources available are appropriate, and address the most appropriate goals for residents in LTC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".