Rehabilitation in a primary care setting for persons with chronic illness – a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim The primary objective of this study was to determine whether adults with a chronic illness within a primary care setting who received a rehabilitation intervention in this setting showed greater improvement in health status and had fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits compared with adults who do not receive the intervention. Background More than half of Canadians (16 million people) live with chronic illness. Persons with chronic illness in primary care, especially older persons who are most at risk for functional decline, are currently not receiving effective management. Methods A randomized controlled trial was used. A rehabilitation multi-component intervention was delivered by a physiotherapist (PT) and occupational therapist in a primary care setting and included collaborative goal setting for rehabilitation needs, a six-week chronic disease self-management (SM) workshop, referral to community programs and a web-based education programme. Findings Three hundred and three patients participated, n = 152 intervention group and n = 151 in the control group. There was a significant difference between the groups for planned hospital days ( F = 6.3, P = 0.00) with an adjusted difference 0.60 day per person, and increased satisfaction with rehabilitation services however no difference on health status or emergency room visits. This rehabilitation intervention which had a strong SM component prevented planned hospitalizations that resulted in a conservative estimated cost saving from reduced hospitalizations of $65 000. Future research needs to examine which patient groups with chronic illness show positive responses to rehabilitation and self-management.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".