Factors associated with living setting at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation after acquired brain injury in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined factors associated with living setting of patients with acquired brain injury at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort design. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: Cohort of patients first identified in acute care with a diagnostic code of traumatic or non-traumatic brain injury who also subsequently received inpatient rehabilitation in Ontario, Canada for fiscal years 2003/2004 to 2005/2006. METHODS: Using logistic regression, we examined predisposing, need and enabling factors associated with living settings at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation (home/other versus residential care). Acute care and inpatient rehabilitation data were used. RESULTS: The majority of patients (83%) were discharged home after inpatient rehabilitation. Among ABI patients, those with longer lengths of stay and patients living alone and in non-home settings at admission were significantly more likely to be living in a residential care setting at discharge. Conversely, patients with higher total function scores from the FIMTM Instrument and those receiving informal support at discharge were significantly less likely to be living in a residential care setting at discharge. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that informal support influences service utilization and provide evidence for its importance at discharge with respect to living in the community. Prior living arrangement and functional outcome at discharge significantly predicted discharge destination. Improving physical function and providing needed supports at discharge may be factors important to reduce the demand for residential care facilities.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".