Characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with chronic low back pain evaluated in the literature: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional rehabilitation programs have demonstrated effectiveness at improving health-related quality of life, function, work abilities, and reducing pain, for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs vary widely across studies. Therefore, clarifying and describing key characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with CLBP will be valuable for future intervention design and implementation. This scoping review aims to identify and describe the key characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with CLBP. METHODS: Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, further enhanced by Levac et al. and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, will be searched to identify relevant published studies. Our scoping review will consider all primary source peer-reviewed published articles that evaluated interprofessional rehabilitation programs for adults with CLBP from all countries and any therapeutic settings. The Covidence software will be used to remove duplicates, article screening, record the step-by-step selection process, and data extraction. The analysis will involve a descriptive numerical summary and narrative analysis. Data will be presented in graphical and tabular format based on the nature of the data. DISCUSSION: This scoping review is expected to provide a source of evidence for developing and implementing interprofessional rehabilitation programs in new settings or contexts. As such, this review will guide future research and provide key information to health professionals, researchers and policymakers interested in designing and implementing evidence and theory-informed interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/rquxv .
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".