MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366464256 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284199

A scoping review of medication self-management intervention tools to support persons with traumatic spinal cord injury

2023· review· en· W4366464256 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren Cadel, Stephanie R. Cimino, Glyneva Bradley-Ridout, Sander L. Hitzig, Tanya Packer, Lisa McCarthy, Tejal Patel, Aïsha Lofters, Shoshana Hahn‐Goldberg, Chester Ho, Sara J. T. Guilcher

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of AgingResearch Institute for AgingWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of WaterlooSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteTrillium Health CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoCraig H. Neilsen Foundation
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicinePolypharmacySelf-managementIntervention (counseling)Spinal cord injuryPopulationPhysical therapyPsychiatryIntensive care medicineSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Persons with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) use multiple medications (polypharmacy) to manage the high number of secondary complications and concurrent conditions. Despite the prevalence of polypharmacy and challenges associated with managing medications, there are few tools to support medication self-management for persons with SCI. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and summarize what is reported in the literature on medication self-management interventions for adults with traumatic SCI. METHODS: Electronic databases and grey literature were searched for articles that included an adult population with a traumatic SCI and an intervention targeting medication management. The intervention was required to incorporate a component of self-management. Articles were double screened and data were extracted and synthesized using descriptive approaches. RESULTS: Three studies were included in this review, all of which were quantitative. A mobile app and two education-based interventions to address self-management of SCI, medication management, and pain management, respectively, were included. Only one of the interventions was co-developed with patients, caregivers, and clinicians. There was minimal overlap in the outcomes measured across the studies, but learning outcomes (e.g., perceived knowledge and confidence), behavioural outcomes (e.g., management strategies, data entry), and clinical outcomes (e.g., number of medications, pain scores, functional outcomes) were evaluated. Results of the interventions varied, but some positive outcomes were noted. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity to better support medication self-management for persons with SCI by co-designing an intervention with end-users that comprehensively addresses self-management. This will aid in understanding why interventions work, for whom, in what setting, and under what circumstances.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0160.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→