Reflections of patients and therapists on a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for persons with brachial plexus injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is lack of knowledge, evidence, and guidelines for rehabilitation interventions for persons with neuralgic amyotrophy (NA) or brachial plexus pathology. A first pilot study, evaluating the effect of an integrated rehabilitation programme, showed improvements in activity and participation levels. AIM: To gain insight, from the perspective of patients and therapists, into the critical ingredients of the programme, that contributed to improvements in activity and participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with eight patients and five therapists (three occupational therapists and two physical therapists). Participants were asked to identify and describe factors regarding the rehabilitation that they perceived as positive and aspects of the programme that could be improved. Data were analysed using a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: Patients reported (1) Time to diagnose: "Finally I'm in the right place;" (2) Awareness: "They gave me a mirror;" (3) Partnership: "There was real contact with the therapists; we made decisions together;" (4) Close collaboration: "Overlapping scopes of practice; doing the same from a different perspective;" and finally (5) Self-management: "Now I can do it myself." Therapists reported (1) "Patients knowledge and understanding is critical to success;" (2) "Activate problem solving and decision making;" (3) "Personalize your therapy; it's more than just giving exercises and information;" (4) "Constant consultation within the team; consistency in messages and approach;" and (5)" Ultimately the patient is in charge." CONCLUSIONS: The critical ingredients, correspond well with each other and include a person-centred approach, education, support in problem solving and decision making and an integrated team approach. These ingredients provided the patients with confidence to take responsibility to manage their everyday lives, the ultimate goal of the programme. Implications for rehabilitation Both patients and therapists believe that the ability to self-manage and take control should be the outcome of high quality integrated rehabilitation programmes for patients with neuralgic amyotrophy and/or other brachial plexus injuries. A person-centred, collaborative, and integrated team approach, among all members of the team, are critical components of care delivery in personalised interventions. Critical programme ingredients are knowledge and education of both the patient and therapists; partnership between patient-therapist and within the team; patient activation and self-reflection; and personalised care. Patients recommend more options for personalisation of the intensity and duration of rehabilitation, the possibility to consult a psychologist and peer support within a group setting.
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 | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".