Self-management interventions for skin care in people with a spinal cord injury: part 1—a systematic review of intervention content and effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To review the content and effectiveness of skin care self-management interventions for people with SCI. SETTING: International. METHODS: We searched electronic bibliographic databases, trial registers, and relevant reference lists. Eligibility criteria for the reviews of intervention content and effectiveness were identical with the exception of study design. The review of intervention content included non-randomized and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The review of effectiveness included RCTs. A Behavior Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy of 93 BCTs was used to code intervention content. Intervention effects on outcomes of interest are summarized descriptively. Effect sizes were calculated, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool applied. RESULTS: In all, 15 studies testing 17 interventions were included in the review of intervention content. Interventions in these studies included 28 BCTs. The most common were "instructions on how to perform behavior" (16 interventions), "credible source" (12 interventions), and "social support (unspecified)" (9 interventions). Ten RCTs were included in the review of intervention effectiveness and they measured knowledge, self-efficacy, and skills relating to skin care/pressure ulcer (PU) prevention, skin care behaviors, skin status (PU prevalence, severity, and time to PU), and health-care utilization for skin problems. Evidence to support intervention effects on these outcomes was limited, particularly for clinical outcomes. Risk of bias assessments was often inconclusive due to poor reporting. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential to design SCI skin care interventions that include currently untested BCTs. Further research and better consistency in outcome measurements and reporting are required to synthesize evidence on effectiveness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".