Development of a rehabilitation goal menu for inpatients with neurological disorders: application in a Saudi Arabian context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a rehabilitation goal menu based on understanding the specific goals that are important to neurological inpatients and that fall within commonly identified rehabilitation domains. DESIGN: Qualitative methods (semi-structured interview, focus groups) to develop a goal menu followed by cross-sectional study to measure participants' goal rankings. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital in Saudi Arabia. SUBJECTS: A total of 130 participants with neurological injury. MAIN MEASURES: Participant rankings of rehabilitation goals and self-reported level of difficulty in areas such as mobility, self-care, accessibility, productivity, and leisure. RESULTS: A 10-item goal menu was developed based on initial focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and literature review. The overall highest ranked rehabilitation goal was Functional Mobility/Locomotion, followed by Self-Care and Religious/Life Philosophy. Self-reported level of difficulty with mobility was strongly associated with the ranking of Functional Mobility/Locomotion as a rehabilitation goal. However, there was little correspondence between reported difficulty and priority ranking of self-care. Subsequent factor analysis of detailed goal items suggest that the goal menu could be reduced to seven items. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an understanding of which rehabilitation goals are important to Saudi clients with neurological disorders that could be used to facilitate their contribution to the goal-setting process.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| 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 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".