Exploration of a Strengths-Based Rehabilitation Perspective with Adults Living with Multiple Sclerosis or Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Rehabilitation practices that adopt a strengths-based perspective are known as transdisciplinary evidence-based practices. However, little is known about whether and how such a perspective is experienced by people living with a neurological condition during their rehabilitation. Objective: To explore how core components of a strengths-based rehabilitation perspective (i.e., hope, self-determination, and mobilization of personal strengths) are envisioned and experienced in outpatient-based rehabilitation by adults living with multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury. Methods: A descriptive exploratory study with mixed data collection was conducted with adults living with spinal cord injury (n = 9) or multiple sclerosis (n = 11). Participants completed two semi-structured interviews and the Recovery Promoting Relationship Scale (RPRS). The qualitative analysis relied on a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. Results: Four themes depict a strengths-based rehabilitation perspective: (1) The mobilization of personal strengths (e.g., what a strengths-based perspective could offer); (2) hope (e.g., what hinders hope in rehabilitation); (3) accessing information for decision-making (e.g., navigating the system); and (4) exercising self-determination (e.g., influencing the length or intensity of rehabilitation services). Conclusions: Hope, self-determination, and the mobilization of personal strengths are of the utmost importance throughout the rehabilitation of adults living with multiple sclerosis and or spinal cord injury. This paper raises awareness about elements specific to the contexts in which services are offered or to the therapeutic relationships influencing how these three strength-based constructs are envisioned and experienced in rehabilitation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".