MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144996285 · doi:10.1177/0269215513502799

Developing complex interventions: lessons learned from a pilot study examining strategy training in acute stroke rehabilitation

2013· article· en· W2144996285 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth R. Skidmore, Deirdre Dawson, Ellen M. Whyte, Meryl A. Butters, Mary Amanda Dew, Emily Grattan, James T. Becker, Margo B. Holm

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesOffice of Research, Health Sciences, University of PittsburghMedical Center, University of Pittsburgh
KeywordsRehabilitationStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychological interventionPhysical therapyCognitive trainingTraining (meteorology)CognitionPsychologyMedicineNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of a strategy training clinical trial in a small group of adults with stroke-related cognitive impairments in inpatient rehabilitation, and to explore the impact of strategy training on disability. DESIGN: Non-randomized two-group intervention pilot study. SETTING: Two inpatient rehabilitation units within an academic health centre. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with a primary diagnosis of acute stroke, who were admitted to inpatient rehabilitation and demonstrated cognitive impairments were included. Individuals with severe aphasia; dementia; major depressive disorder, bipolar, or psychotic disorder; recent drug or alcohol abuse; and anticipated length of stay less than five days were excluded. INTERVENTION: Participants received strategy training or an attention control session in addition to usual rehabilitation care. Sessions in both groups were 30-40 minutes daily, five days per week, for the duration of inpatient rehabilitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed feasibility through participants' recruitment and retention; research intervention session number and duration; participants' comprehension and engagement; intervention fidelity; and participants' satisfaction. We assessed disability at study admission, inpatient rehabilitation discharge, 3 and 6 months using the Functional Independence Measure. RESULTS: Participants in both groups (5 per group) received the assigned intervention (>92% planned sessions; >94% fidelity) and completed follow-up testing. Strategy training participants in this small sample demonstrated significantly less disability at six months (M (SE) = 117 (3)) than attention control participants (M(SE) = 96 (14); t 8 = 7.87, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible and acceptable to administer both intervention protocols as an adjunct to acute inpatient rehabilitation, and strategy training shows promise for reducing disability.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.448
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.045 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations53
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207