MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136838078 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20130240

Therapists' Use of the Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) Intervention: A Practice Implementation Survey Study

2014· article· en· W2136838078 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Connell, Naoimh E. McMahon, Caroline Watkins, Janice J. Eng

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsGRASPIntervention (counseling)RehabilitationClinical PracticeMedical educationKnowledge translationOccupational therapyPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceNursingKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Only a small percentage of research is ever successfully translated into practice. The Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) is a stroke rehabilitation intervention that anecdotally has had rapid translation from research to clinical practice. This study was conducted to explore the characteristics of this practice implementation. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were: (1) to explore the extent of practice implementation of GRASP in the United Kingdom; (2) using an implementation framework, to explore UK therapists' opinions of implementing GRASP; and (3) if GRASP is found to be used in the United Kingdom, to investigate differences in opinions between therapists who are using GRASP in practice and those who are not. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design was used. METHODS: Data were collected via an online questionnaire. Participants in this study were members of the College of Occupational Therapy Specialist Section Neurological Practice and the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists Interested in Neurology. RESULTS: Of the 274 therapists who responded to the survey, 61 (22.3%) had experience of using GRASP, 114 (41.6%) knew of GRASP but had never used it, and 99 (36.1%) had never heard of GRASP. Therapists displayed positive opinions toward the implementation of a manual with graded progressions of structured upper limb exercises for people after stroke. Opinions were different between therapists who had used GRASP and those who had not. LIMITATIONS: The findings of this study may be limited by response bias. CONCLUSIONS: GRASP is a relatively new stroke rehabilitation intervention that has made impressive translation into the knowledge and practice of UK therapists. Therapists' opinions would suggest that GRASP is both an acceptable and feasible intervention and has the potential to be implemented by a greater number of therapists in a range of settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207