A Qualitative Study on Prehabilitation before Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties: Integration of Patients’ and Clinicians’ Perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore and integrate the perspectives of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), their caregivers, and clinicians who are working with these patients about current preoperative rehabilitation (“prehab”) content and delivery. Participants were individuals with hip (n = 46) or knee OA (n = 14), their family caregivers (n = 16), and clinicians working with patients with hip/knee OA (n = 15). In semi-structured interviews and focus groups, participants answered questions regarding barriers to accessing prehab, gaps in prehab content, learning preferences, and delivery formats. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using Qualitative Description method. Four main themes were identified: (1) “I didn’t get any of that” discusses barriers in accessing prehab; (2) “I never got a definitive answer” highlights necessary information in prehab; (3) “better idea of what’s going to happen” emphasizes the positive and negative aspects of prehab; (4) “a lot of people are shifting to online” describes participants’ perspectives on online education. Our findings confirm the need for prehab education and the potential of online prehab education. The results inform the development of prehab educational modules based on users’ input.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it