Abstract P207: Association Between Rehabilitation and Functional Outcomes of Stroke Survivors: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The increasing rate of stroke and its consequent disabilities has contributed to a growing proportion of stroke survivors requiring rehabilitation. Further research is needed to understand the provision of rehabilitation in the community settings and relationship between variance in stroke care and patient outcomes. Hypothesis: To investigate the association between rehabilitation and functional outcomes of stroke survivors. Method: Data for this analysis was derived from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) (merged cycles 2013-2016: 237,121 participants). Participants reporting complications from stroke were selected to assess the effect of physiotherapy (PT) and other allied health (AH) utilization. Primary endpoints included need for assistance in activity of daily living (ADL) and injury due to fall in the past 12 months (Inj-Fall). All statistical analyses were performed using R (V.4.0.2) and survey design. Results: Overall, 3,773 (1.1%) patients with stroke (47% females, 71.1% older than 60 years) were studied. Total of 0.2% and 1.6% of stroke survivors in 2013-14 had consulted PT and AH compared to 9.1% and 21% in 2015-16, respectively. Consequently, the rate of need for ADL and Inj-Fall were significantly greater in 2013-14. In general, age was a significant predictor of low accessibility to PT (OR=0.66(0.51-0.85)) or AH (OR=0.79(0.66-0.93)) whereas no significant association between sex and access to PT or AH (P=0.1). As expected, higher income was associated with greater PT utilization (OR=2.11(1.1-4.2)). Finally, PT or AH consultations were significantly associated with less need for assistance in ADL and lower Inj-Fall (Table1). Conclusion: Results of this study reinforce the beneficial effect of rehabilitation on ADL and injury in stroke survivors. Future longitudinal work is necessary to understand directionality of the relationship, and the impact of healthcare access, within varied healthcare systems and models of health .
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".