MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283770118 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.821195

Effects of the CarFreeMe Traumatic Injuries, a Community Mobility Group Intervention, to Increase Community Participation for People With Traumatic Injuries: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Crossover

2022· article· en· W4283770118 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stacey George, Christopher Barr, Angela Berndt, Rachel Milte, Amy Nussio, Zoe Adey‐Wakeling, Jacki Liddle

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Traumatic brain injuryPhysical therapyCrossover studyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyAlternative medicinePsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: After traumatic injuries community participation is a common goal, promoting wellbeing and independence. Community mobility and transportation influence an individual's independence in community participation. With the ability to drive safely often compromised after traumatic injuries, the adverse consequences of driving cessation include a loss of identity and reduced participation in chosen activities. In rehabilitation, individualized community mobility intervention is not routinely provided. The primary aim of this trial was to evaluate whether a group-based intervention, the CarFreeMe TI program was more effective than standard intervention, an information sheet of alternative transport, in improving community mobility for people following traumatic injuries. The secondary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect: types of transport used, transport satisfaction, community mobility self-efficacy, quality of life, goal satisfaction and performance, for people following traumatic injuries; and to undertake a preliminary assessment of the potential resource use associated with the intervention, and lessons for implementation. Design: Prospective, pilot, randomized, blind observer, controlled trial with crossover. Participants: Twenty individuals with traumatic injuries. Intervention: Six-week group-based support and education program, the CarFreeMe TI delivered in community settings (intervention) and standard information related to transport options available (control). Primary Outcome Measures: Community participation using a Global Positioning System device to record the location and number of outings from home. Secondary Outcome Measures: CarFreeMe TI Transport Questionnaire, Community Mobility Self-efficacy Scale, quality of life measures, Modified Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for goals (importance and satisfaction), participant satisfaction survey results and researcher logs. Results: Those who received the intervention were more likely to use public transport and transport services and had an improved quality of life, when compared to the control group. The intervention group also reported high levels of improvement in goal performance and satisfaction. Global Positioning System data collection was incomplete, with geolocation data unusable. There was no significant change in number/type of visits away from home. Conclusions: A group-based community mobility education program promoted modes of active independent transport but did not impact on outings from home. Future research could include passive collection methods using a smartphone to record community participation. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au/, identifier: ACTRN12616001254482.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207