The effects of rehabilitation on intellectually-disabled people – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rehabilitation has emerged as a comprehensive approach to addressing intellectually-disabled peoples’ skill deficits, improving competencies and facilitating optimal functioning in order to provide the greatest possible measure of social and economic participation, self-reliance and independence.Objective: To synthesise critically and summarise the best available evidence of the effects of rehabilitation on intellectually-disabled people.Method: Literature searches of different electronic databases and manual searches were conducted using selected keywords. Studies on the effects of rehabilitation on intellectually-disabled people were selected systematically, appraised critically for methodological quality and summarised.Results: Rehabilitation interventions indicated good outcomes with regard to intellectually-disabled people. Findings showed that people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities improved in terms of activities of daily living (ADL) after rehabilitation. Improvement was noted in ADL, self-care skills, communication skills and cognitive achievements.Conclusion: Findings demonstrated positive rehabilitation effects on intellectually-disabled people. This study contributes to the comprehensive nursing care of intellectually-disabled people by endorsement of the effectiveness of rehabilitation in terms of ADL, self-care skills, communication skills and cognitive achievements. The collected evidence of this study may contribute to the education of more effective nurse practitioners involved in the daily care and rehabilitation of intellectually-disabled people.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".