MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977299381 · doi:10.1080/10790268.2019.1612642

Conception and development of Sexual Health indicators to advance the quality of spinal cord injury rehabilitation: SCI-High Project

2019· article· en· W2977299381 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stacy Elliott, Gaya Jeyathevan, Shea Hocaloski, Colleen O’Connell, Sivakumar Gulasingam, Sandra Mills, Farnoosh Farahani, Anita Kaiser, Mohammad Alavinia, Maryam Omidvar, B. Catharine Craven

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Cord Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsStan Cassidy FoundationToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthPsychosocialRehabilitationMedicineHealth carePsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Quality of life (healthcare)PsychologyNursingPhysical therapyPsychiatryPopulationEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Although self-management is linked to reduced secondary health complications (SHCs) and enhanced overall quality of life post-spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D), it is poorly integrated into the current rehabilitation process. Promoting self-management and assuring equity in care delivery is critical. Herein, we describe the selection of Self-Management structure, process and outcome indicators for adults with SCI/D in the first 18 months after rehabilitation admission. METHODS: Experts in self-management across Canada completed the following tasks: (1) defined the Self-Management construct; (2) conducted a systematic search of available outcomes and their psychometric properties; and (3) created a Driver diagram summarizing available evidence related to Self-Management. Facilitated meetings allowed development and selection following rapid-cycle evaluations of proposed structure, process and outcome indicators. RESULTS: The structure indicator is the proportion of staff with appropriate education and training in self-management principles. The process indicator is the proportion of SCI/D inpatients who have received a self-management assessment related to specific patient self-management goal(s) within 30 days of admission. The outcome indicator is the Skill and Technique Acquisition, and Self-Monitoring and Insight subscores of the modified Health Education Impact Questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The structure indicator will heighten awareness among administrators and policy makers regarding the need to provide staff with ongoing training related to promoting self-management skill acquisition. Successful implementation of the Self-Management process and outcome indicators will promote self-management education and skill acquisition as a rehabilitation priority, allow for personalization of skills related to the individual's self-management goal(s), and empower individuals with SCI/D to manage their health and daily activities while successfully integrating into the community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Cord MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207