A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of structured goal-setting following stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility, the cluster design effect and the variance and minimal clinical importance difference in the primary outcome in a pilot study of a structured approach to goal-setting. DESIGN: A cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities. SUBJECTS: People who were admitted to inpatient rehabilitation following stroke who had sufficient cognition to engage in structured goal-setting and complete the primary outcome measure. INTERVENTIONS: Structured goal elicitation using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. MAIN MEASURES: Quality of life at 12 weeks using the Schedule for Individualised Quality of Life (SEIQOL-DW), Functional Independence Measure, Short Form 36 and Patient Perception of Rehabilitation (measuring satisfaction with rehabilitation). Assessors were blinded to the intervention. RESULTS: Four rehabilitation services and 41 patients were randomized. We found high values of the intraclass correlation for the outcome measures (ranging from 0.03 to 0.40) and high variance of the SEIQOL-DW (SD 19.6) in relation to the minimally importance difference of 2.1, leading to impractically large sample size requirements for a cluster randomized design. CONCLUSIONS: A cluster randomized design is not a practical means of avoiding contamination effects in studies of inpatient rehabilitation goal-setting. Other techniques for coping with contamination effects are necessary.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".