MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3044871708 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v10n11p31

Effect of an educational rehabilitation program on prevention of falls after stroke

2020· article· en· W3044871708 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esmat Sayed Abd-Almageed, Asmaa Sayed Abd-Almageed, Marwa Ali Almasry, Heba M. Fahmy, Ghaydaa A. Shehata

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationStroke (engine)MedicineFalling (accident)Physical therapyNeurologyNeurosurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Fall is common in patient with stroke. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of an educational rehabilitation program on prevention of falls after stroke.Methods: Quasi-experimental design was utilized. Setting: Neurology Department and Outpatient Clinics at Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery Hospital at Assiut University. Sample: Sixty adult patients diagnosed with stroke. Patients were equally divided into two equal groups (study and control) 30 patients each. Tools: Tool I-Patient assessment sheet. Tool II-Morse Fall Scale.Results: A statistically significant improvement of circumstances and consequences of falls and decreasing the injuries due to fall (p < .01) among the study group in comparison to the control group ones where, study group showed a decrease in the number of falling episodes (2.07 ± 0.78 vs. 5.4 ± 1.73), an improve in their ability to get up independent (83% vs. 23.3%), no need for medical attention (3.3% vs. 66.7%), and no restriction to their activities after falling (0.0% vs. 56.7%).Conclusions: The educational rehabilitation program had a statistically significant effect on the improvement of circumstances and consequences of falls and decreasing the injuries due to fall among the study group than among the control group. Recommendation: Simple illustrated educational booklets should be available for stroke patients. Replication of this study on a larger sample with extending the follow-up period to 6 months is suggested.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→