An enriched environmental programme during inpatient neuro-rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of an enriched environmental activities programme in an inpatient tertiary neuro-rehabilitation unit. METHODS: A total of 103 participants were randomized to an intervention group (n = 52) undertaking an enriched environmental activities programme or a control group (n = 51) receiving usual ward activity. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Depression, Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS). Other measures included: Neurological Impairment Scale; Multidimensional Health Locus of Control, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and Euro-Quality of Life-5D. Questionnaire assessments were performed at admission, discharge and 3-months post-discharge. RESULTS: Mean age of subjects was 62.5 years (standard deviation 18.5), 63% were male; 53 had stroke and the remainder had other neurological conditions. Compared with controls, the intervention group showed significant improvement at discharge in: DASS: "total", "depression", and "stress" subscales (p < 0.05 for all, with small effect sizes (η2) = 0.04-0.05); MoCA (p = 0.048, η2 = 0.04) and FIM motor (total and "self-care", "mobility" subscales (p < 0.05 for all, with moderate effect sizes, η2 = 0.0-0.08). At 3-month follow-up, significant differences were maintained in most secondary outcomes in the intervention group. Cognitive function and activities improved most in participants with stroke. CONCLUSION: An enriched environmental programme can produce significant improvements in functional and cognitive ability in inpatient neurological cohorts compared with routine ward activity programmes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".