Perspectives from the spinal cord injury community with teleSCI services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) experiences with and perceptions towards teleSCI services during the COVID-19 global pandemic in British Columbia, Canada. METHOD: = 71) to partake in an interview. In total, 12 individuals participated in the study. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were then coded and analysed by team members using qualitative descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Individuals with an SCI perceived teleSCI services to be convenient, accessible, affordable, and an effective way to access some healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in-person healthcare was still needed by many participants to effectively manage and treat their SCI-associated secondary conditions. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, in a post-pandemic world, the SCI community would benefit from blended models of healthcare delivery that leverage telecommunication technologies to increase accessibility to healthcare while still providing in-person care for assessments and treatments.Implications for RehabilitationIndividuals with an SCI perceived teleSCI services to be convenient, accessible, affordable, and an effective way to access some healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in-person healthcare was still needed and desired by those with an SCI to effectively manage and treat their SCI-associated secondary conditions.In a post-pandemic world, individuals with an SCI would benefit from blended models of healthcare delivery that leverage telecommunication technologies to increase accessibility to healthcare, while still providing in-person care for those requiring ongoing treatment and management of secondary conditions associated with the patient's SCI.TeleSCI services offer the potential to allow healthcare professionals and SCI specialists to collaborate (digitally) with patients at the same time. This patient-centered approach could not only help healthcare professionals strategize effective remedies to better manage secondary conditions associated with SCI but could result in overall better-quality care received by those within the SCI community.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".