MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scoping Review of the Person-Centered Literature in Adult Physical Rehabilitation

2019· preprint· en· W3123258292 on OpenAlexaff
Tiago S. Jesus, Felicity Bright, Cátia S. Pinho, Christina Papadimitriou, Nicola Kayes, Cheryl Cott

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData extractionSystematic reviewDescriptive statisticsProtocol (science)RehabilitationEmpirical researchPsychologyGrey literatureInclusion (mineral)MedicineMEDLINEApplied psychologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicineStatisticsSocial psychologyMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To map the literature pertaining to adult Person-Centered Rehabilitation (PCR).Data Sources: Following our previously published scoping review protocol, data were identified through: three major databases, snowball searches and expert consultation.Study Selection: Two independent reviewers identified English-language papers which addressed adult physical rehabilitation and met one or more of the six pre-defined inclusion categories for PCR content. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted key characteristics of included papers (e.g. aims, methods, participants). Quantitative methods (descriptive statistics, regression analysis) and qualitative content analyses were used to synthesize the results. Data synthesis: Of 5084 unique records initially screened, 145 papers were included: 111 empirical, including 11 systematic reviews. Empirical papers had data from 13498 clients and 3849 providers, in total. Yearly publications grew exponentially from 2000 to 2017 (r²= 0.65; p<0.01). Publications were unevenly distributed by countries (e.g. United States’ publications per population size was 45 times lower than New Zealand’s). Most papers focused in more than one profession, setting-type or health conditions, respectively 57.2%, 66.2%, and 60.7%. Finally, more than half of the empirical papers (53.2%) studied implementation of PCR approaches, including its effect. Conclusion: This scoping review synthesizes key characteristics and publication trends in the PCR literature, which is mainly empirical and growing exponentially over time. Stakeholders can use the identified trends, gaps, and literature map to guide further PCR research, and both clinical and organizational practices. The high prevalence of papers focused on multiple professions, settings-type, or health conditions reinforces the need for developing a transdisciplinary, trans-service model of PCR, which will be derived from a thematic analysis of this body of literature.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.254
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.254
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0550.049
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207