An Evaluation of a Postoperative Rehabilitation Program After Spinal Surgery and Its Impact on Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This study invited patients to evaluate the content and style of a rehabilitation program used as an intervention in a multicenter, factorial, randomized controlled trial of the postoperative management of spinal surgery patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the acceptability and content of the rehabilitation program. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of rehabilitation after spinal surgery is sporadic, and the evidence for its benefit is mixed. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine whether functional outcome of spinal surgery could be improved by a postoperative rehabilitation program and/or an educational booklet provided at hospital discharge, each compared with usual care. METHODS: Patients randomized to postoperative rehabilitation began the course 6 weeks after surgery. At the end of the course of 12 classes, patients completed an evaluation of content, style, and length using forced choice and open questions. Patients not attending the final class completed the evaluation at their 3-month review. RESULTS: Compliance with rehabilitation was poor, with 41% of subjects failing to attend any classes and 16% attending less than half. Compliance with the evaluation was 100% for the 105 patients attending 1 or more classes. The length, content, and approach to the classes were rated positively, and patients gave the class a median rating of 9 of 10, range 5 to 10, with 91% rating the classes as 7 or above. CONCLUSION: Compliance with a postoperative rehabilitation program was disappointing, but the program was assessed positively and of benefit by those who attended. Issues were raised in relation to timing and location of classes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".