Using a Modified ADAPTE Process to Enable Effective Implementation of Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Treating Pressure Ulcers in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To apply a modified ADAPTE process to adapt best practices to a local context for successful implementation of electrical stimulation therapy (EST) for treating pressure injuries in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Participants: An expert team of health care professionals and a consumer participated in a 2-day workshop to assist in the development of the locally adapted EST document in Southwest Ontario, Canada. Results: A process map illustrating the flow of activities to initiate EST for treating pressure injuries in persons with SCI based on the challenges and opportunities existing within this region was created. The team also developed a summary of roles and responsibilities delineating tasks specific to providing EST and identified a set of challenges likely to be encountered. Conclusions: The modified ADAPTE process provided a clear and flexible structure to adaptation when used for implementation planning. This article shares some challenges associated with using this process for local adaptation and shares strategies of improvement for future studies aimed at adapting a practice to their local environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".