Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation in improving physical functioning and quality of life for long-term-care residents with dementia: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation versus non-rehabilitation control in improving physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care residents with dementia. INTRODUCTION: Many long-term-care residents live with dementia and have impaired physical function and poor quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical function and quality of life for people living with dementia, yet many long-term-care residents with dementia do not receive this intervention, and health care providers are unsure of which rehabilitation interventions are effective. Studies synthesizing effective rehabilitation programs are needed to guide practice in the long-term-care sector where many residents live with dementia. Previous studies have focused broadly on long-term care, specific professions, interventions or outcomes, or people with dementia in the community. Our review will focus on long-term-care residents living with dementia and a broader definition of physical rehabilitation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include studies that evaluate physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among long-term-care residents with any severity of dementia. We will include studies that measure the effect on performance-based physical functioning and self- or proxy-reported quality of life. METHODS: Searches will be conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviewers will conduct a critical appraisal of eligible studies, assess methodological quality, and extract the data. Where possible, studies will be pooled in a statistical meta-analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42022308444.
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 | 0.057 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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".