MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743702905 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014331

Integrating the perspectives of individuals with spinal cord injuries, their family caregivers and healthcare professionals from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration: protocol for a scoping study on SCI needs

2017· review· en· W2743702905 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Moreno, Diana Zidarov, Chandhana Raju, Jill Boruff, Sara Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationMedicineSpinal cord injuryNeeds assessmentNursingStakeholderHealth carePhysical therapyPsychiatrySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction There is fragmented information about the different needs following a spinal cord injury (SCI). Expressed SCI needs can be met or unmet, they change along the rehabilitation continuum (eg, acute, rehabilitation and reintegration into the community) and can be different for traumatic and non traumatic SCI. The general objective of this scoping study is to evaluate and integrate the needs of individuals with traumatic and non-traumatic SCI, their family caregivers and those reported by rehabilitation professionals from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration. The specific objectives are to: (A) synthesise the needs of individuals with SCI as perceived by themselves, their family caregivers and rehabilitation professionals using two theoretical models, (B) classify needs as met and unmet, (C) explore the evolution of met/unmet needs from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration and (D) provide recommendations to improve SCI care. Methods and analysis (A) identifying the most frequent met and unmet needs reported by adults with traumatic and non-traumatic SCI, their family caregivers and their rehabilitation professionals from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration; (B) identifying relevant studies with a search in electronic databases; (C) charting the data based on categories refined and adjusted with a stakeholder group; (D) collating, summarising and reporting the results using two analytical frameworks (Maslow's hierarchical model of human needs and the Ferrans et al 's model of health-related quality of life) and (E) a stakeholder consultation phase. Ethics and dissemination The results of this scoping study will allow understanding SCI needs from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration from the perspective of different stakeholders. An integrated master report combining the needs of individuals with SCI from the perspectives of different stakeholders from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration will follow the consultation meetings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.006

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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207