Physiotherapists Have Accurate Expectations of Their Patients’ Future Health-Related Quality of Life after First Assessment in a Subacute Rehabilitation Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expectations held by health professionals and their patients are likely to affect treatment choices in subacute inpatient rehabilitation settings for older adults. There is a scarcity of empirical evidence evaluating whether health professionals expectations of the quality of their patients' future health states are accurate. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal cohort investigation was implemented to examine agreement (kappa coefficients, exact agreement, limits-of-agreement, and intraclass-correlation coefficients) between physiotherapists' (n = 23) prediction of patients' discharge health-related quality of life (reported on the EQ-5D-3L) and the actual health-related quality of life self-reported by patients (n = 272) at their discharge assessment (using the EQ-5D-3L). The mini-mental state examination was used as an indicator of patients' cognitive ability. RESULTS: Overall, 232 (85%) patients had all assessment data completed and were included in analysis. Kappa coefficients (exact agreement) ranged between 0.37-0.57 (58%-83%) across EQ-5D-3L domains in the lower cognition group and 0.53-0.68 (81%-85%) in the better cognition group. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapists in this subacute rehabilitation setting predicted their patients' discharge health-related quality of life with substantial accuracy. Physiotherapists are likely able to provide their patients with sound information regarding potential recovery and health-related quality of life on discharge. The prediction accuracy was higher among patients with better cognition than patients with poorer cognition.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".