Integrated Care Pathways and Quality of Life on a Stroke Rehabilitation Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Integrated care pathways (ICP) may not reduce disability, institutionalization, or duration of hospitalization compared with conventional multidisciplinary team (MDT) care in organized stroke rehabilitation. Their potential to improve patient heath status or satisfaction with care is not known. METHODS: A comparison of quality of life, caregiver strain, and patient/caregiver satisfaction at 6 months after stroke was undertaken in 152 stroke patients randomized to receive ICP or MDT care. Differences in processes of care were recorded with the use of a predefined schedule. Multivariate analyses were undertaken to identify the effect of age, sex, stroke severity, functional status, mood, and use of care pathway on quality of life score. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable for baseline characteristics of age, sex, stroke severity, and initial disability. MDT care was characterized by greater emphasis on return of higher function and caregiver needs compared with ICP. EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) scores were higher in the MDT group (median, 72 versus 63; P<0.005), who also had higher scores for EuroQol dimension of social functioning (P=0.014). Higher EQ-VAS scores were independently related to MDT care (P=0.04), Rankin score (P=0.01), and psychological function (P<0.0001) but not to age, sex, or stroke severity. There were no significant differences in patient or caregiver satisfaction between the 2 settings. CONCLUSIONS: Better quality of life in patients receiving conventional MDT care may be attributable to improved social functioning and greater attention to higher function and caregiver needs during rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".