An exploration of perceived social isolation among persons with spinal cord injury in Ontario, Canada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To advance the understanding of perceived social isolation among persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), the objectives of the present study were to explore: (1) experiences of perceived social isolation and (2) factors that contribute to perceived social isolation. METHODS: Interpretive description qualitative methodology was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with 30 individuals with SCI from across Ontario (Canada) from November 2016 to August 2017. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified disruption to social networks that seemed to impact perceived social isolation. Five major themes were identified: (1) impact on structure and frequency of social network; (2) importance of feeling heard; (3) importance of employment, hobbies, and sports; (4) need to improve physical accessibility and built environment; and (5) individual characteristics. Changes in quality of social networks, rather than size, contributed to greater feelings of perceived social isolation. The built environment, maintenance of employment, hobbies, and sports, social media, and technology use, as well as individual traits, were also found to impact perceived social isolation. CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on the development of programs to help maintain or improve social network quality for persons with SCI to minimize the impact of perceived social isolation.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPerceived social isolation, resulting from physical and environmental barriers, is a challenge that is faced by many individuals who are living in the community with a spinal cord injury (SCI).Rehabilitation and community programs should utilize an individualized approach to find solutions to challenges faced by this population to prevent the effects of perceived social isolation.Education on how to adapt to changes in social network, together with the provision of access to peer-to-peer support groups, and SCI specific return to work or leisure programs, is recommended as an essential component of rehabilitation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".