Self-reported Reasons for Changes in Performance of Daily Activities During a 2-Year Multidisciplinary Multiple Sclerosis Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Few multidisciplinary rehabilitation studies with a heterogeneous design have focused on individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS). This study compared subjective-reported changes in performance and satisfaction with daily activities among moderately and severely disabled individuals with MS during a 2-year, multidisciplinary, group-based, outpatient rehabilitation program comprising education in self-management and compensatory techniques, exercise, and guided peer support. Methods: Thirty-eight adults with moderate disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score of 4.0-5.5, 74% women, mean age of 48) and 41 individuals with severe disability (EDSS 6.0-8.5, 63% women, mean age of 48) were assessed at baseline and after 12 and 21 months of outpatient rehabilitation using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Group × time interactions were analyzed using mixed analysis of variance. Participants' explanations of reasons for changes in activity performance were collected via semistructured interviews and analyzed content. Results: Statistically significant improvements in COPM performance and satisfaction scores were reported in both groups from baseline to 21 months of rehabilitation. No significant between-group differences in improvement were observed. The self-reported reasons for improvement were mainly linked to environmental factors. Conclusions: The outpatient rehabilitation program, including 4 themes-cognition, mood, energy conservation, and body control-improved the self-reported performance of patients with MS with moderate and severe disabilities. Environmental factors warrant consideration during 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".