Regional Differences in Rehabilitation Needs, Rehabilitation Access, and Physical Outcomes Among Multiple Trauma Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to compare regional differences in perceived needs for postacute rehabilitation services, perceived barriers to postacute rehabilitation services, and long-term functional and physical health outcomes among multiple trauma survivors. DESIGN: A population-based cohort study with retrospective measures of exposure and cross-sectional health outcomes measures was conducted in regions with different levels of rehabilitation services availability in the province of Quebec, Canada. The study included 435 participants, aged 18-65 yrs, admitted to level I or level II trauma centers in 2000-2001, who required rehabilitation services. The participants were interviewed by telephone 2-4 yrs postinjury. Needs for (yes/no) and perceived barriers (yes/no) to obtain 18 posttraumatic rehabilitation services were assessed. Physical health was measured with the medical outcome study SF-12 and functional status with the functional independence measure. RESULTS: There were no significant regional differences in the proportions of perceived barriers to functional rehabilitation (39.4%), to social/vocational rehabilitation (52.2%), and to community integration services (46.5%). Adjusted-SF-12 and functional independence measure scores were similar across regions. CONCLUSION: Contrary to expectations, there were no regional differences in perceived barriers to rehabilitation services for multiple trauma survivors. Rather, surprisingly high proportions of barriers were reported across the province.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".