MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005217313 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.985802

The Bobath (NDT) concept in adult neurological rehabilitation: what is the state of the knowledge? A scoping review. Part I: conceptual perspectives

2014· article· en· W2005217313 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Vaughan‐Graham, Cheryl Cott, F. Virginia Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationCornerstoneRehabilitationPsychologySystematic reviewConceptual frameworkInclusion (mineral)Delphi methodRelevance (law)Applied psychologyManagement scienceMEDLINEComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyEngineeringSociologyEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The study's purpose was to describe the range of knowledge pertaining to the Bobath concept/NDT in adult neurological rehabilitation, synthesize the findings, identify knowledge gaps and develop empirically based recommendations for future research. This article explores the conceptual literature. METHODS: A scoping review of research and non-research articles published from 2007 to 2012. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on a systematic procedure. Inclusion criteria for studies were: electronically accessible English language literature with Bobath and/or neurodevelopmental therapy (NDT) as the subject heading in the title/keyword/abstract/intervention comparison with respect to adult neurological conditions. Data were abstracted and summarized with respect to study purpose, defining and operationalizing the Bobath concept, therapist demographics, recruitment, discussion and conclusions. RESULTS: Of the 33 publications identified, 14 publications sought to define the theoretical foundations and identify key aspects of clinical practice of the contemporary Bobath concept. The publications comprised three theoretical papers, four surveys, a Delphi reported through two papers, one qualitative study, three letters to the editor and one editorial. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge derived from review of the conceptual literature provides clinicians with an updated Bobath clinical framework as well as identifying aspects of Bobath clinical practice that require careful consideration in future effectiveness studies. Implications for Rehabilitation The integration of posture and movement with respect to the quality of task performance remains a cornerstone of the redefined Bobath concept. A key fundamental principle of the clinical application of the Bobath concept since its inception is the selective manipulation of sensory information, namely, facilitation, to positively affect motor control and perception in persons post-central nervous system lesion. This is an aspect of Bobath clinical practice that requires further investigation. Study and treatment fidelity issues such as therapist expertise, the use of treatment logs to document individualized clinical practice, as well as therapist supervision and evaluation require careful consideration in the implementation of Bobath effectiveness studies such that causality can be determined.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.007
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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

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

Citations73
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207