Completing an interdisciplinary outpatient intervention improves patient rehabilitation goals following a mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Individualized and interdisciplinary rehabilitation programs are recommended following a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), but often have long waitlists. Accordingly, innovative evidence-based programs are needed.Objectives The first objective of this study was to determine the number and types of rehabilitation goals chosen by individuals completing an interdisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation intervention (BrainEx90) for persisting symptoms following an mTBI. The second objective was to investigate whether completing BrainEx90 or choosing specific types of goals influenced performance and satisfaction ratings of these goals.Methods 217 individuals (44.4 ± 13.5 years old) with persisting symptoms following an mTBI completed BrainEx90, a 16-session interdisciplinary group outpatient rehabilitation intervention at Parkwood Institute between November 2013 and September 2019. Performance and satisfaction ratings of self-identified goals before and after BrainEx90 were assessed using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, and changes in ratings were analyzed using a linear mixed effects model.Results 1008 goals were identified and categorized as: productivity (45%); leisure (37%); and self-care (18%). Satisfaction ratings were significantly higher for all goal types following BrainEx90. Satisfaction with self-care goals improved significantly more than leisure [t(151) = 3.24, p < .01] and productivity [t(144) = 2.97, p < .01] goals. Performance ratings were also significantly greater following BrainEx90 [2.4, 95% CI [2.27, 2.53], p < .01)].Conclusion Performance and satisfaction of self-identified rehabilitation goals significantly improved following BrainEx90. Satisfaction with self-care goals demonstrated the greatest improvements, yet the most identified goal type was productivity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".