An Exploratory Study of the Differences between Unidisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Goal Setting in Acute Therapy Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this preliminary study was to examine the differences between unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary therapy goal setting in an acute trust. The ideal goal is thought to be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely) and related to functional activity. Twenty-one therapists from one acute trust participated in the study. One group of therapists used a unidisciplinary approach to goal setting and one group of therapists used a multidisciplinary approach. Goals were collected over an 8-week period. The goals were scored as SMART and functional by three independent therapists blind to the method of working. Compared with the unidisciplinary goals, the multidisciplinary goals were more frequently SMART (66/76 multi v 11/50 uni, p<0.001) and related to functional activity (64/76 multi v 31/50 uni, p<0.005). Multidisciplinary working seems to result in goals that are more likely to be SMART and functional. Nevertheless, it remains to be discovered whether setting SMART, functional goals improves patient outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".