MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using scoping review methods to describe current capacity and prescribe change in Canadian SCI rehabilitation service delivery

2012· article· en· W2014787672 on OpenAlexafffundabout
B. Catharine Craven, Christina Balioussis, Molly C. Verrier, Jane Hsieh, Erin Cherban, Amir Rasheed, Vanessa K. Noonan, Dalton L. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Cord Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsPraxis Spinal Cord InstituteParkwood InstituteUniversity Health NetworkLawson Health Research InstituteToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersToronto Rehabilitation InstituteOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareRick Hansen Institute
KeywordsRehabilitationService delivery frameworkBest practiceMultidisciplinary approachInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthKnowledge translationService (business)White paperMedicineProcess managementKnowledge managementBusinessPhysical therapyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the methodology used to conduct a scoping review of spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation service delivery in Canada, and to explain the reporting process intended to advance future service delivery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A SCI rehabilitation framework derived from the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health was developed to describe the goals and interprofessional processes of rehabilitation. An adapted Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodological framework was used to conduct a scoping review of SCI rehabilitation services in Canada. Data were obtained from multiple relevant sources via survey (N = 3572 data fields) from 13 of 15 Canadian tertiary SCI rehabilitation sites, systematic reviews, white papers, literature reviews, clinical practice resources, and clinicians. Multidisciplinary teams of content experts (N = 17), assisted with data interpretation and validation by articulating practice trends, gaps, and priorities. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The findings will be presented in an atlas, which includes aggregate national data regarding impairment and demographic characteristics, service utilization, available resources (staff and capital equipment), specialized services, local expertise, and current best practice indicators, outcome measures, and clinical guidelines. Data were collated and synthesized relative to specific rehabilitation goals. The current state of SCI rehabilitation service delivery (specific to each rehabilitation goal) is summarized in a report card within three domains, knowledge generation, clinical application, and policy change, and specifies key 2020 priorities. CONCLUSION: These findings should prompt critical evaluation of current Canadian SCI rehabilitation service delivery while specifying enhancements in knowledge generation, clinical application and policy change domains likely to assist with achievement of best practices by 2020.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.250
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.382
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2500.382
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0810.083
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0230.011
Open science0.0090.012
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.419
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.138 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Cord MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207