MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382502313 · doi:10.2196/41186

Models of Telehealth Service Delivery in Adults With Spinal Cord Injuries: Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W4382502313 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Shaghayegh Mirbaha, Ashley Morgan, Ada Tang, Jenna Smith‐Turchyn, Julie Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsTelehealthService delivery frameworkMedicineSpinal cordSpinal cord injuryService (business)TelemedicineMedical emergencyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBusinessHealth carePolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Canada, approximately 86,000 people live with spinal cord injury (SCI), and there are an estimated 3675 new cases of traumatic or nontraumatic etiology per year. Most people with SCI will experience secondary health complications, such as urinary and bowel issues, pain syndrome, pressure ulcers, and psychological disorders, resulting in severe chronic multimorbidity. Moreover, people with SCI may face barriers in accessing health care services, such as primary care physicians' expert knowledge regarding secondary complications related to SCI. Telehealth, defined as the delivery of information and health-related services through telecommunication technologies, may help address some of the barriers, and indeed, the present global COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the importance of integration of telehealth in health care systems. As a result of this crisis, health care providers have increased the usage of telehealth services, providing health services to individuals in need of community-based supportive care. However, the evidence on models of telehealth service delivery for adults with SCI has not been previously synthesized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to identify, describe, and compare models of telehealth services for community-dwelling adults with SCI. METHODS: This scoping review follows the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Studies published between 1990 and December 31, 2022, were identified by searching the Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Papers with specified inclusion criteria were screened by 2 investigators. Included articles focused on identifying, implementing, or evaluating telehealth interventions, including primary health care services and self-management services delivered in the community and home-based settings. One investigator performed a full-text review of each article, and data extraction included (1) study characteristics; (2) participant characteristics; (3) key characteristics of the interventions, programs, and services; and (4) outcome measures and results. RESULTS: A total of 61 articles reported telehealth services used for preventing, managing, or treating the most common secondary complications and consequences of SCI, including chronic pain, low physical activity, pressure ulcers, and psychosocial dysfunction. Where evidence exists, improvements in community participation, physical activity, and reduction in chronic pain, pressure ulcers, etc, following SCI were demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth may offer an efficient and effective option for health service delivery for community-dwelling individuals with SCI, ensuring continuity of rehabilitation, follow-up after hospital discharge, and early detection, management, or treatment of potential secondary complications following SCI. We recommend that the stakeholders involved with patients with SCI consider the uptake of hybridized (blend of web-based and in-person) health care delivery models to optimize the care continuum and self-management of SCI-related care. The findings of this scoping review may be used to inform policy makers, health care professionals, and stakeholders engaged in establishing web-based clinics for individuals with SCI.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.014
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207