Patient-centered evaluation of home-based rehabilitation developed using community-based participatory research approach for people with disabilities: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the locally tailored and individualized home-based rehabilitation (HBR) program developed using the community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach, in terms of perceived health in patients with different levels of social engagement, and to explore the perceived facilitators and barriers to rehabilitation. METHOD: A concurrent mixed-method design was employed. Four patients participated in the combined therapist- and self-delivered HBR program for 5 months. The perceived health outcomes were quantitatively assessed at baseline, after the therapist-delivered intervention period, and at 1 and 3 months after the self-delivered intervention period. Then, in-depth individual interviews were conducted to explore the facilitators and barriers to rehabilitation. RESULTS: The perceived health of patients who were fully or partially engaged in society was increased during the therapist-delivered intervention period, and maintained the increased level during the self-delivered intervention period, whereas that of patients who were rarely or not engaged dropped again to lower than the baseline. These results were caused by differentiated facilitators and barriers to rehabilitation depending on the level of social engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Applying tailored strategies to patients with differing levels of social engagement is recommended to further optimize the local relevance of the HBR program. Implications for rehabilitation A community-based participatory research approach can provide an opportunity to enhance local relevance through community-academic partnerships, in developing a home-based rehabilitation (HBR) program for the people with disabilities. For community therapists, enhancing the local relevance of the HBR program, applying tailored strategies to patients with differing levels of social engagement is recommended because the perceived health of the HBR program can be different owing to differing perceived facilitators and barriers to rehabilitation, depending on the level of social engagement. For patients with rare or no engagement in society, satisfying their need for interaction with the therapists and helping them cope with their wrong belief about the possibility of their recovery is important to encourage behavioral change and perceived physical improvements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".