The patient's view of recovery: An emerging tool for empowerment through self-knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To introduce Recovery Preference Exploration (RPE) as a new technique for studying the personal significance of being able to perform one type of functional activity over others. To determine if patients' concepts of function reflect the ADL, sphincter management, mobility and cognition (ASMC) domains established through the factor analyses of observed patient performance. METHODS: RPE involves an adapted card sort procedure. Patients sorted 18 cards each listing a single functional skill such as eating, walking, and memory into subjectively meaningful groups of activities based on how they see those skills relating to one another in their daily lives. They then ordered the groups from most to least important. Recovery preferences were explored for 32 patients with disabilities resulting from neurological or other conditions undergoing inpatient rehabilitation in the USA. RESULTS: The abilities to eat, bathe and toilet were the activities most frequently placed in the most valued pile. At times, the patient's card sorts mirrored the ASMC domains. At other times, patients grouped activities that tended to occur in a particular place or that were linked through cause and effect. Patients' narrative explanations reflected the uniqueness of their personal circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: RPE uncovers the life contexts that underlie patients' subjective beliefs about the meaning of being able to perform various types of activities. RPE might be applied in clinical practice and research to explore the idiosyncratic aspects of disability.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".