A Survey of Perceived Implementation Gaps for a Clinical Practice Guideline for the Rehabilitation of Adults With Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Appraising current practice is an important prerequisite for implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The study objective was to determine the perceived level of implementation, priority, and feasibility of a subset of key CPG recommendations for the rehabilitation of individuals with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (MSTBI). METHODS: Fifty-one teams at acute care and rehabilitation facilities were invited to complete an electronic survey addressing the perceived level of implementation, priority, and feasibility of 109 fundamental and priority recommendations from the CPG-MSTBI. RESULTS: Forty-four clinical teams responded across 2 Canadian provinces. Most of the recommendations were deemed as "fully" or "mostly" implemented, while relative gaps in implementation were perceived in recommendations regarding coordination with mental health and addiction providers (>75% of respondents indicated low levels of implementation), "Caregivers and Families" (26%), and "Psychosocial and Adaptation Issues" (25%). Priority levels and perceived feasibility were generally high (>60% and >86%, respectively) for recommendations with low levels of implementation. Priority recommendations for implementation were identified for both acute care and rehabilitation settings in Québec and Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of clinician perception provides a helpful perspective for implementation. Exploring perceived implementation gaps based on users' needs and expectation should be a part of an implementation process.
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 | 0.021 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".