A Scoping Review of Clinical Practice Improvement Methodology Use in Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context The Clinical Practice Improvement (CPI) approach is a methodological and quality improvement approach that has emerged and is gaining in popularity. However, there is no systematic description of its use or the determinants of its practice in rehabilitation settings. Method We performed a scoping review of the use of CPI methodology in rehabilitation settings. Results A total of 103 articles were reviewed. We found evidence of 13 initiatives involving CPI with six different populations. A total of 335 citations of determinants were found, with 68.7% related to CPI itself. Little information was found about what type of external and internal environment, individual characteristics and implementation process might facilitate or hinder the use of CPI. Conclusion Given the growing popularity of this methodological approach, CPI initiatives would gain from increasing knowledge of the determinants of its success and incorporating them in future implementation.
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 | 0.062 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".