Therapeutic Ride: Health Service Evaluation and Satisfaction of Patients and Their Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the health service and the satisfaction of patients and their caregivers in relation to the therapeutic ride, in Integrated Continuous Care. Methods: Cross-sectional, descriptive study, conducted between January 2017 and January 2018, using a specific form for data collection and interview conducted before hospital discharge. Results: The study included 23 patients and 27 caregivers. Regarding the evaluation of the service related to the therapeutic ride, 95.6% (22/23) of the patients and 70.4% (19/27) of the caregivers confirmed that they understood the objectives of this practice. The duration of the therapeutic ride was considered sufficient by 69.6% (16/23) of patients and 70.4% (19/27) of caregivers. Most patients (52.2%) and caregivers (70.4%) declared to be very satisfied with the result of the therapeutic ride. Conclusion: The therapeutic ride demonstrates its differential aspect by adding training, contributing greatly to the safe transition from the hospital to the home.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".