Home-Based Physical Therapy Intervention With Adherence-Enhancing Strategies Versus Clinic-Based Management for Patients With Ankle Sprains
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To some extent, favorable treatment outcomes for physical therapy intervention programs depend on patients attending their clinic appointments and adhering to the program requirements. Previous studies have found less-than-optimal levels of clinic attendance, and a viable option might be physical therapy intervention programs with a large component of home treatment. This study investigated the effects of a standard physical therapy intervention program--delivered primarily at either the clinic or home--on ankle function, rehabilitation adherence, and motivation in patients with ankle sprains. SUBJECTS: Forty-seven people with acute ankle sprains who were about to start a course of physical therapy intervention participated in the study. METHODS: Using a prospective design, subjects were randomly assigned to either a clinic intervention group or a home intervention group. Ankle function and motivation were measured before and after rehabilitation, and adherence to the clinic- and home-based programs was measured throughout the study. RESULTS: The groups had similar scores for post-treatment ankle function, adherence, and motivation. The home intervention group had a significantly higher percentage of attendance at clinic appointments and better physical therapy intervention program completion rate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Home-based physical therapy intervention appears to be a viable option for patients with sprained ankles.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it