The Impact of an Evidence-Informed Spinal Cord Injury Activities of Daily Living Education Manual (SADL-eM): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a catastrophic injury associated with functional loss and life-threatening complications. Many people with SCI in the Gaza Strip of Palestine are discharged from inpatient rehabilitation to the community while still lacking many daily life skills. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) seeks to test the impact of the Spinal Cord Injury Activities of Daily Living Education Manual (SADL-eM)-an evidence-based occupational therapy patient educational intervention-on rehabilitation outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The proposed trial aims to evaluate the SADL-eM intervention compared with standard treatment among people with SCI. METHODS: This is a parallel RCT with two study arms: intervention and control. A total of 90 patients treated in inpatient rehabilitation settings will be randomly allocated to two study groups. Both groups will receive standard care. The intervention group will also use the SADL-eM with their treating occupational therapist during rehabilitation. The SADL-eM is a comprehensive activities of daily living (ADL) educational tool that was codeveloped with people with SCI and stakeholders across Gaza. The self-report version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure will be used on admission (ie, baseline measure) and after 6 weeks as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes include the third version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure, the Private Religiousness Practices Scale, the Organizational Religiousness Short-Form, additional ADL domains covered by the education manual, and adherence to the intervention. The effect of the intervention will be determined using repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: This study will be conducted from April 2021 through December 2022, with results expected to be available in January 2023. CONCLUSIONS: If the SADL-eM is demonstrated as clinically effective, this will have significant implications for occupational therapy interventions in low- and middle-income countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04735887; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04735887.
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 | 0.055 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.015 |
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".