Exploring factors influencing occupational therapists’ perception of patients’ rehabilitation potential after acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Clinical practice guidelines advocate for early involvement of rehabilitation professionals in screening acquired brain injury patients' rehabilitation needs and determining the required rehabilitation services. Little is yet known about the nature of occupational therapists' role in this context. This exploratory study sought to identify factors influencing occupational therapists' perception of acquired brain injury patients' rehabilitation potential for inpatient rehabilitation. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used to analyse data from a focus group involving 12 occupational therapists working in acute care and inpatient rehabilitation. A consensus-seeking technique was used to identify patient-related factors participants perceived as most important to consider when assessing rehabilitation potential. The transcription of the group discussion was analysed using an interpretive description approach to identify additional factors influencing occupational therapists' perception. RESULTS: Participants agreed on 11 patient-related factors most important to consider: age, behaviour, cognitive abilities, endurance, home environment, medical status, observed improvement in acute care post-injury, physical abilities, post-injury functional status, pre-injury functional status, patient and family expectations. Additional factors included the influence of the organisational context (i.e. acute care and broader health care context) as well as occupational therapists' professional expertise, knowledge of scientific evidence, concerns for ethical decisions and interpretive activities (i.e. clinician's interpretation of patients' characteristics in light of all other factors). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that assessing rehabilitation potential is a complex process that goes beyond strictly appraising patients' characteristics. Additional factors influence clinicians' perception of patients' rehabilitation potential. Clinicians should pay more attention to these factors when making evidence-based decisions regarding patients' potential to benefit from rehabilitation.
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 | 0.020 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".