MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604030884 · doi:10.1177/0308022617690405

Using telerehabilitation to support people with multiple sclerosis: A qualitative analysis of interactions, processes, and issues across three interventions

2017· article· en· W2604030884 on OpenAlexaff
Afolasade Fakolade, Marcia Finlayson, Matthew Plow

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelerehabilitationPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)DocumentationPsychologyMedicineOccupational therapyNursingMedical educationPhysical therapyTelemedicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction It is important to understand the interactions, processes, and issues that occur within telerehabilitation interventions to inform research and practice. The aim of this study was to identify the difficulties reported and intervention features that were captured as helpful in the notes written by occupational therapists during a telerehabilitation trial. Method Administrative documentation in the form of 60 subjective, objective, assessment, and plan notes were collected. The trial examined the effectiveness of three teleconference-delivered interventions: physical activity alone, fatigue management with physical activity, and contact-control social support for people with multiple sclerosis. Results Five themes emerged: desiring change, taking action, experiencing difficulty, infrastructure support, and relief and appreciation. Desiring change captured therapists’ observations of clients’ desire to manage symptoms and improve participation; it was most apparent at the beginning and supported clients’ taking action as the interventions progressed. Therapists identified their own difficulties with group facilitation and time management and clients’ difficulties with some intervention materials. Infrastructure support was reported to be helpful in minimizing some of these difficulties. In the end, the therapists expressed relief that the clients appeared to benefit from and appreciate the interventions. Conclusion This study highlights the need for and importance of providing resources and training to support teleconference-delivered interventions in clinical practice.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207