A value-based practice model of rehabilitation: consumers’ recommendations in action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present a model of rehabilitation practice that is based on the recommendations of consumers who used rehabilitation services and have a life-changing physical impairment (spinal cord injury - SCI). This value-based practice model is based on two qualitative studies. The first study developed the framework (social adaptation) for a new practice model based on values. The second study, described in this paper, used the framework to learn about recommendations for change in the rehabilitation process. Participants in the second study were 80 volunteers who live with a SCI in the community, across the province of Ontario, Canada. A snowball strategy was used to recruit interested participants. Participants were involved in face-to-face interviews which included questions on what helped and hindered their initial rehabilitation process, and their recommendations for change. In this paper, we described a model that demonstrates how consumer input is essential in shaping a comprehensive rehabilitation process. The model is based on overarching value statements that express the worthiness of all individuals, the value of the lived experience of disability and the responsibility of the rehabilitation process to enable client autonomy. Four "values in action" are articulated: caring and respect for the individual and his/her personhood; applying the lived experience of disability; fostering autonomy; and promoting hopefulness. These values have been initially described in another paper based on a specific subset of 15 women living with SCI related to body issues during rehabilitation. This paper builds on this value work and we develop key practices for a progressive rehabilitation culture and model, based on the larger study group of 80 participants (men and women with SCI). This value-based model, when integrated with traditional, physical improvement-focused rehabilitation, has the potential to create a more effective process by offering clients better support as they go through the complex process of re-building their lives and making the transition back to the community. Implications for Rehabilitation We suggest that the Values in the Action Rehabilitation Practice Model that emphasized social adaptation be used along side the physical rehabilitation approach to enhance client-based practice. That peers with disabilities work collaboratively with rehabilitation professionals within a culture that acknowledges and reimburses their knowledge and expertise. Rehabilitation professionals learn about the lived experience of disability and systemic issues by being involved in grass-roots community organizations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".