MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308012144 · doi:10.2471/blt.22.288105

Scoping review of rehabilitation care models for post COVID-19 condition

2022· article· en· W4308012144 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Décary, Wouter De Groote, Chiara Arienti, Carlotte Kiekens, Paolo Boldrini, Stefano Giuseppe Lazzarini, Michèle Dugas, Théo Stefan, Léa Langlois, Frédérique Daigle, Florian Naye, Annie LeBlanc, Stefano Négrini

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakRehabilitationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)BetacoronavirusMedicinePandemicCoronavirus InfectionsMEDLINEVirologyIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyBiologyPathologyOutbreakDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To systematically map the current evidence about the characteristics of health systems, providers and patients to design rehabilitation care for post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Registry and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to 22 April 2022. The search strategy included terms related to (i) post COVID-19 condition and other currently known terminologies; (ii) care models and pathways; and (iii) rehabilitation. We applied no language or study design restrictions. Two pairs of researchers independently screened title, abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data. We charted the evidence according to five topics: (i) care model components and functions; (ii) safe delivery of rehabilitation; (iii) referral principles; (iv) service delivery settings; and (v) health-care professionals. Findings: We screened 13 753 titles and abstracts, read 154 full-text articles, and included 37 articles. The current evidence is conceptual and expert based. Care model components included multidisciplinary teams, continuity or coordination of care, people-centred care and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. Care model functions included standardized symptoms assessment, telehealth and virtual care and follow-up system. Rehabilitation services were integrated at all levels of a health system from primary care to tertiary hospital-based care. Health-care workers delivering services within a multidisciplinary team included mostly physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. Conclusion: Key policy messages include implementing a multilevel and multiprofessional model; leveraging country health systems' strengths and learning from other conditions; financing rehabilitation research providing standardized outcomes; and guidance to increase patient safety.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0230.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations77
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the World Health OrganizationSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207