The Health and Life Priorities of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the priorities of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) can assist in choosing research priorities that will ultimately improve their quality of life. This systematic review examined studies that directly surveyed people with SCI to ascertain their health priorities and life domains of importance. Twenty-four studies (a combined sample of 5262 subjects) that met the inclusion criteria were identified using electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO). The questionnaire methods and domains of importance were reviewed and described. While the questionnaires varied across studies, a consistent set of priorities emerged. Functional recovery priorities were identified for the following areas: motor function (including arm/hand function for individuals with tetraplegia, and mobility for individuals with paraplegia), bowel, bladder, and sexual function. In addition, health, as well as relationships, emerged as important life domains. The information from this study, which identified the priorities and domains of importance for individuals with SCI, may be useful for informing health care and research agenda-setting activities.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".