Scoping Review of the Person-Centered Literature in Adult Physical Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".