Home-Based Physical Therapy Intervention With Adherence-Enhancing Strategies Versus Clinic-Based Management for Patients With Ankle Sprains
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".