Development and validation of continuity measures for inpatients receiving rehabilitation care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The main goal of this study was to exemplify the development of a measure of continuity of care (COC) from inpatients’ perspective. This measure is focused on several aspects related to physiotherapy.Methods: A cross-sectional self-report based psychometric study was carried out in a public hospital in southeast Spain. One hundred and fifty two patients with neurological and orthopaedic disorders who received rehabilitation care during stay at hospital were included in the study. A self-report questionnaire was used to examine experiences of patients related to the three types of COC, relational, management and informational continuity. The questionnaire also includes questions about sociodemographic characteristics, patient/therapist affiliation and trust with therapist. To examine reliability were used test-retest and internal consistency. For validation analysis, there were used convergent and known group strategies.Results: Of the 19 indicators included, 13 were selected to demonstrate adequate reliability and validity. From these indicators were generated three composite measures (Relational, management and COC index) and one individual measure (Informational continuity). Test-retest reliability indicated excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.75) for the three indexes. The range of Cronbach’s value was from 0.60 to 0.73. Total scores of all the indexes were moderately correlated with the satisfaction scale (r > 0.30). Regarding the known groups, all indexes scores were similar for men and woman. However, significant differences were found for management index and for relational index, based on trust with therapist and patient/therapist affiliation, respectively.Conclusions: The continuity self-reported measures is a valid and reliable method to assessing the COC in hospitalized patients receiving physiotherapy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".