Effectiveness of a Bed Positioning Program for Treating Older Adults With Knee Contractures Who Are Institutionalized
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: Although contractures in patients in long-term care institutions are an important issue, there have been only a few studies that have evaluated interventions for contractures. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a bed positioning program (BPP) for the treatment of patients with knee flexion contractures. SUBJECTS: Sixteen patients with a high level of cognitive and functional impairment (mean age=82 years, SD=6.48, range=71-93) in a chronic care hospital participated in the study. METHODS: The BPP consisted of stretching a patient's knee into extension and then securing and maintaining the position for a period of 40 minutes, 4 times per week. Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=8 in each group). One group received a BPP for 8 weeks, followed by 8 weeks of no intervention. The other group received the intervention in the reverse order. Once a week, participants were assessed for range of knee extension, knee pain, and skin integrity. RESULTS: Twelve participants completed the study. There was no improvement in participants' range of knee extension during the intervention period. Overall, there was no difference in mean range of knee extension between the intervention period and the no-intervention period. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: The results of this study do not support the use of a BPP for treating patients with knee flexion contractures.
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