Amount and Content of Sensorimotor Therapy Delivered in Three Stroke Rehabilitation Units in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study creates a baseline clinical portrait of sensorimotor rehabilitation in three stroke rehabilitation units (SRUs) as a first step in implementing a multi-centre clinical research platform. Method: Participants in this cross-sectional, descriptive study were the patients and rehabilitation teams in these SRUs. Prospective (recording of therapy time and content and a Web-based questionnaire) and retrospective (chart audit) methods were combined to characterize the practice of the rehabilitation professionals. Results: The 24- to 39-bed SRUs admitted 100–240 inpatients in the year audited. The mean combined duration of individual occupational and physical therapy was 6.3–7.5 hours/week/patient. When evening hours and the contributions of other professionals as well as group therapy and self-practice were included, the total amount of therapy was 13.0 (SD 3) hours/patient/week. Chart audit and questionnaire data revealed the Berg Balance Scale was the most often used outcome measure (98%–100%), and other outcome measure use varied. Clinicians favoured task-oriented therapy (35%–100%), and constraint-induced movement therapy (0%–15%), electrical stimulation of the tibialis anterior (0%–15%), and body weight–supported treadmill training (0%–1%) were less often used. Conclusions: This study is the first to provide objective data on therapy time and content of stroke rehabilitation in Quebec SRUs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".