Supporting Rehabilitation of Rural Patients Receiving Total Knee Arthroplasty Through Physical Activity: Perceptions of Stakeholder Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify how patients with osteoarthritis waiting for and recovering from total knee arthroplasty (TKA) conceptualized and participated in physical activity behaviors in their rural setting and to gather perceptions of health care professionals and rehabilitation decision-makers on the feasibility of a remotely led physical activity coaching intervention. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive study, we collected data from three stakeholder groups: patients waiting for or recovering from TKA (interviews), health professionals delivering a physical activity intervention to patients in the recovering cohort (focus group), and rehabilitation leaders involved in decision-making at the local or provincial level (interviews). RESULTS: A total of 38 individuals provided their perspectives (25 patients, five health professionals, eight decision-makers). Patients waiting for and recovering from surgery described the attributes of their rural environment that supported and restricted their ability to participate in physical activities. Patients recovering from TKA appreciated support for goal-setting and problem-solving during their rehabilitation. Health care professionals and decision-makers commented on the benefits of the program's innovative use of relatively simple technology to support remotely delivered, personalized rehabilitation in rural settings. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the limited voice of and about patients living with osteoarthritis who reside in rural settings and identifies facilitators and barriers to TKA rehabilitation in this population. Our findings highlight that it is important to consider the local context and the resources available to patients as they navigate living well with osteoarthritis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".