A scoping review of rehabilitation interventions for survivors of head and neck cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize, understand, and disseminate findings from a broad body of literature on rehabilitation interventions used with survivors of head and neck cancer.Method: Searches were conducted in six databases. Inclusion criteria were studies of adult head and neck cancer survivors with a predefined primary rehabilitation outcome as a result of an intervention. Excluded were studies not written in English, opinion papers, or studies where the intervention was not carried out by a rehabilitation healthcare service. A second level, full-text review of the studies was conducted. A thematic analysis was used to examine and combine study findings.Results: A total of 3804 results were retrieved from all sources resulting in 39 papers that were analyzed. The thematic analysis of the included papers represented interventions focusing on swallowing and nutrition, speech, physical therapy, assistive devices, complementary and alternative modalities, comprehensive interdisciplinary programs, and preventive rehabilitation programs.Conclusion: This review has provided an overview of the scope of rehabilitation interventions available for survivors of head and neck cancer and preliminary information about their efficacy. This is foundational information for the development and refinement of rehabilitation interventions and programs for head and neck cancer survivors.Implications for RehabilitationThe existing evidence suggests that survivors of head and neck cancer can benefit from early screening of potential rehabilitation needs and being involved in preventive rehabilitation programs pre-surgery when possible.Rehabilitation programs should consider swallowing interventions for patients as evidence reports improved swallowing function, decreased pain and discomfort, and reduced duration of feeding tube use.Rehabilitation programs should consider nutritional interventions after radiotherapy: Patients benefited from stabilized weights, improved nutritional status, and an improved quality of life.Physical exercise interventions demonstrated improvements in physical function, muscular endurance, range of motion, overall quality of life, and showed reductions in pain, and fatigue.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it