Application of the Andersen’s health care utilization framework to secondary complications of spinal cord injury: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review was to identify research priority areas related to secondary complications and associated health care use for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Method: Data Sources: Peer-reviewed journals were identified using CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Social Sciences Abstracts, Social Works Abstract and PsycInfo search engines. Key references were hand searched. Study Selection: A total of 289 abstracts were identified from the initial search strategy. We removed studies that did not measure health care and those that did not involve analytical investigation. Data Extraction: The selected 31 studies were reviewed in detail using a coding template based on the domains and sub-components of the Andersen model (i.e. environmental, population characteristics, health behavior and outcome). Results: Most studies measured predisposing characteristics (e.g. age, gender) and need characteristics (e.g. level of injury). There was a notable absence of environmental characteristics (e.g. health system, neighborhood variables), enabling characteristics and health behaviors (beyond diet and nutrition). Conclusions: We identified a gap in the SCI literature. Future research should focus on longitudinal study designs with more representation of non-traumatic spinal cord injury, as well as utilizing more advanced statistical analyses (i.e. multivariate level) to adjust for confounding variables.Implications for RehabilitationSecondary complications are problematic for individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI).This scoping review aimed to identify research priority areas related to secondary complications and associated health care use for individuals with spinal cord injury.This research showed a gap in the SCI health services literature.Future research should focus on longitudinal study designs with more representation of non-traumatic spinal cord injury as well as utilizing more advanced statistical analyses (e.g. multivariate level) to adjust for confounding variables.
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 | 0.031 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".