MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385967235 · doi:10.46292/sci22-00063

Caregiving for People With Spinal Cord Injury Undergoing Upper Extremity Reconstructive Surgery: A Prospective Exploration of Lived Experiences, Perioperative Care, and Change Across Time

2023· article· en· W4385967235 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Heeb Desai, Allison J. L’Hotta, Carie R. Kennedy, Aimee S. James, Katherine C. Stenson, Catherine Curtin, Doug Ota, Deborah Kenney, Katharine Tam, Christine B. Novak, Ida K. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeThematic analysisRehabilitationSpinal cord injuryPhysical therapyActivities of daily livingHealth careMental healthNursingQualitative researchPsychiatrySurgerySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Nerve transfer (NT) and tendon transfer (TT) surgeries can enhance upper extremity (UE) function and independence in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). Caregivers are needed to make this surgery possible, yet caregivers experience their own set of challenges. Objectives: This comparative study explored the perioperative and nonoperative experiences of caregivers of individuals with cervical SCI, focusing on daily life activities, burden, and mental health. Methods: Caregivers of individuals with cervical SCI were recruited and grouped by treatment plan for the person with SCI: (1) no surgery (NS), (2) TT surgery, and (3) NT surgery. Semistructured interviews were conducted at baseline/preoperative, early follow-up/postoperative, and late follow-up/postoperative. Caregivers were asked about their daily life, mental health, and challenges related to caregiving. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Quantitative, single-item standardized burden score (0-100) data were collected at each timepoint. Results: Participants included 23 caregivers (18 family members, 4 friends, 1 hired professional). The surgeries often brought hope and motivation for caregivers. Caregivers reported increased burden immediately following surgery (less for the NT compared to TT subgroup) yet no long-term changes in the amount and type of care they provided. NS caregivers discussed social isolation, relationship dysfunction, and everyday challenges. Conclusion: Health care providers should consider the changing needs of SCI caregivers during perioperative rehabilitation. As part of the shared surgical decision-making approach, providers should educate caregivers about the postoperative process and the extent and potential variability of short- and long-term care needs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Spinal Cord Injury RehabilitationSame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207