MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179503166 · doi:10.1002/pmrj.12669

Providing rehabilitation to patients recovering from<scp>COVID‐19</scp>: A scoping review

2021· review· en· W3179503166 on OpenAlexaff
Marina B. Wasilewski, Stephanie R. Cimino, Kristina M. Kokorelias, Robert Simpson, Sander L. Hitzig, Lawrence R. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationCINAHLMEDLINEMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health carePhysical therapyNursingPsychological interventionPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the nature and extent of research on rehabilitation care provision to patients with COVID-19. Specifically, we aimed to (1) describe the impact of COVID on patients and associated rehabilitation needs, (2) outline the adaptations and preparations required to enable the provision of COVID rehabilitation, (3) describe the types of rehabilitation services and treatments provided to COVID patients, and (4) identify barriers and facilitators to delivering COVID rehabilitation. LITERATURE SURVEY: We searched Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, and CINAHL on June 26, 2020 using key words such as "rehabilitation," "physical medicine," "allied health professionals," and variations of "COVID." The search was updated on October 13, 2020. We included articles published in English and that focused on some aspect of COVID rehabilitation for adults. We excluded articles focused on pediatric populations and those not focused (or minimally focused) on rehabilitation for COVID patients. METHODOLOGY: Data were charted based on article type (ie, primary data, secondary data, guidelines). Key information extracted included (1) COVID sequelae; (2) rehabilitation adaptations; (3) structure, function, and content of rehabilitation services/programs; (4) facilitators and/or barriers to providing COVID rehabilitation; and (5) recommendations for COVID rehabilitation programming. Data were synthesized narratively. SYNTHESIS: In total, 128 articles were included in the review that reported primary data (n = 33), secondary data (n = 82), and clinical practice/patient self-management guidelines (n = 13). Evidence begins to suggest that rehabilitation is necessary and valuable for addressing COVID-related declines in health, function, and well-being. Most articles recommended that an individualized rehabilitation program be provided across the continuum of care by an interdisciplinary team of professionals and that the nature and extent of rehabilitation be informed by the care setting and COVID severity. Most issues that challenged COVID rehabilitation delivery were directly addressed by the facilitators and adaptations identified. CONCLUSIONS: Future recommendations include a greater emphasis on the psychosocial aspects of COVID rehabilitation, inclusion of families in rehabilitation planning, and the use of qualitative approaches to complement clinical data.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0180.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207