Evaluating the impact of a novel telerehabilitation service to address neurological, musculoskeletal, or coronavirus disease 2019 rehabilitation concerns during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A novel telerehabilitation service provides wayfinding and self-management advice to persons with neurological, musculoskeletal, or coronavirus disease 2019 related rehabilitation needs. Method: We utilized multiple methods to evaluate the impact of the service. Surveys clarified health outcomes (quality of life, self-efficacy, social support) and patient experience (telehealth usability; general experience) 3-months post-call. We analysed associations between, and within, demographics and survey responses. Secondary analyses described health care utilization during the first 6 months. Results: Sixty-eight callers completed the survey (42% response rate). Self-efficacy was significantly related to quality of life, interpersonal support and becoming productive quickly using the service. Becoming productive quickly was significantly related to quality of life. Education level was related to ethnicity. Survey respondents' satisfaction and whether they followed the therapist's recommendations were not significantly associated with demographics. Administrative data indicated there were 124 callers who visited the emergency department before, on, or after their call. The average (SD) frequency of emergency department visits before was 1.298 times (1.799) compared to 0.863 times (1.428) after. Discussion: This study offers insights into the potential impact of the telerehabilitation service amidst pandemic restrictions. Usability measurements showed that callers were satisfied, corroborating literature from pre-pandemic contexts. The satisfaction and acceptability of the service does not supplant preferences for in-person visits. The survey sample reported lower quality of life compared with the provincial population, conflicting with pre-pandemic research. Findings may be due to added stressors associated with the pandemic. Future research should include population-level comparators to better clarify impact.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".