The experiences of physical rehabilitation in individuals with spinal cord injuries: a qualitative thematic synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this thematic synthesis review was to identify and synthesise published qualitative research on the perspectives of individuals with spinal cord injuries with respect to physical rehabilitation interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The peer-reviewed literature was searched across seven databases and identified abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers. A thematic synthesis methodology was used to code and synthesise the results from the included studies. RESULTS: In total, 7233 abstracts were identified; 31 articles were selected for inclusion, representing 26 physical rehabilitation interventions. The methodological quality of studies was moderate (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research mean ± standard deviation = 14.39 ± 3.61). The four main themes developed were: (1) Benefits of physical rehabilitation, (2) Challenges of physical rehabilitation, (3) Need for support, and (4) Issue of control. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative thematic synthesis provides key insights into the experiences of individuals with spinal cord injuries who received physical rehabilitation. Recommendations for practice, based on the findings, include creating a diverse, encouraging, and educational physical rehabilitation experience with supportive staff who focus on communication and person-centred care. Implications for Rehabilitation Physical rehabilitation provides psychological as well as physical benefits to people with spinal cord injuries, including motivation, hope, improved self-confidence, and acceptance. Challenges identified during physical rehabilitation for people with spinal cord injuries, such as comparisons, negative emotions, recovery expectations, and slow progress, should be addressed by healthcare professionals to ensure person-centred care. People with spinal cord injuries identified a need for support from health care professionals, family, and friends, as well other people with spinal cord injuries. There is an issue of control in physical rehabilitation for people with spinal cord injuries, which can result in a fight with oneself or with healthcare professionals to regain the control that has been lost.
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 | 0.061 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".