Physical Activity Interventions in Rehabilitation Programs for Outpatients With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is limited scientific evidence about the optimal content and parameters of physical activity (PA) interventions for rehabilitation outpatients with persisting symptoms of a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Clinicians have thus had to develop services based on their expertise, feasibility and patient needs. Objectives: This study aimed to document PA interventions delivered in specialized programs of a Canadian province offering outpatient rehabilitation services for individuals with persisting symptoms of mTBI to inform clinical intervention development and future research. Materials and methods: Cross-sectional study using an online survey containing 32 multiple choice and short open-ended questions to be answered by program administrators, with their clinical team’s input. Content analysis and descriptive statistics were used. Results: Data from 94% of rehabilitation sites (n = 17) revealed that PA interventions are delivered to children (n = 4), adults (n = 15) and older adults (n = 5) with mTBI symptoms lasting ≥1 month to ≥1 year post injury. PA interventions aim to increase participation (n = 14), improve body functions (n = 9), manage persisting mTBI symptoms (n = 5) and improve self-management skills (n = 5) and knowledge (n = 4). Interventions include individual (n = 15) or group-based (n = 12) format, home-programs (n = 7), and teaching/education (n = 6). Most PA interventions include aerobic and resistance exercises. PA dosage parameters vary greatly. Conclusion: Clinical experts use multimodal interventions for rehabilitation program users that target improvement in body functions, participation and symptoms. The results can inform the development, enhancement and evaluation of PA interventions. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions for this clientele are warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".