Rehabilitation outcomes in persons with spina bifida: A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary ambulatory rehabilitation programme for persons with spina bifida in an Australian community cohort. METHODS: Fifty-four participants randomized to a treatment group (n = 27) for a high-intensity rehabilitation programme (with cognitive behavioural therapy) or a control group (n = 27) comprising usual care. Outcome measures include: Disability: Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (IIQ7), American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA), Wexner-Faecal Incontinence Score (WFIS), Neurological Disability Scale (NDS); PARTICIPATION: Depression, Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS), McGill Quality of Life (MQOL), Brief COPE Scale, Genera-lized Self-efficacy Scale (GSE). Assessments were made at baseline and 3-months post-intervention. RESULTS: Adjusted for baseline disease and demographic covariates, the intervention group improved significantly at 3-month follow-up for primary and secondary outcomes, with moderate to large effect sizes (r): urinary/bowel dysfunction (AUA, UDI6, IIQ7, WFIS) (p < 0.001 for all, r = 0.4-0.7); and cognitive function: NDS "cognitive" and "mood" (p < 0.01, r = 0.6 for both); DASS "depression", "anxiety" and "stress" (p < 0.001 for all, r = 0.5-0.7); MQOL total (p = 0.013, r = 0.5), "psychological symptoms" (p < 0.001, r = 0.8); "active coping" (p = 0.035) and "self-efficacy" scores (GSE p < 0.001). No difference between groups was noted in other subscales. CONCLUSION: Targeted rehabilitation can improve clinical outcomes in persons with spina bifida. Further research is needed for longer-term outcomes related to "ageing" and participation restriction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".