MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523090561 · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12327

Exploring factors influencing occupational therapists’ perception of patients’ rehabilitation potential after acquired brain injury

2016· article· en· W2523090561 on OpenAlexafffund
Priscilla Lam Wai Shun, Carolina Bottari, Tatiana Ogourtsova, Bonnie Swaine

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation
KeywordsRehabilitationContext (archaeology)Occupational therapyPerceptionExploratory researchFocus groupMedicineAcute careQualitative researchAcquired brain injuryPsychologyCognitionHealth carePhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207