How Do Recreation Therapists Support People Living with Acquired Brain Injuries Across the Continuum of Care?: A Scoping Review and Narrative Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquired Brain Injuries (ABIs) affect a significant number of individuals in Canada each year, leading to various functional challenges and complex care needs. Interdisciplinary teams play a crucial role in addressing these challenges, with Recreation Therapy (RecT) emerging as a valuable addition to such teams. RecT focuses on using leisure, recreation, and play as tools to enhance the independence and quality of life of individuals with ABIs. Despite its potential benefits, there is limited academic literature on the specific role of RecT in ABI care. This scoping review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Inclusion criteria encompassed a broad range of ABI patients, RecT concepts, care settings, and study designs. A comprehensive search strategy was applied to multiple databases, and data extraction and analysis followed a systematic approach. A total of 71 articles were included in the review, following a rigorous screening process. These articles were diverse in terms of study design, population served, and healthcare context. Data extraction focused on the role of RecT, assessments, interventions, and patient outcomes, categorized by the dimensions of health and well-being (SPECS – Social, Physical, Emotional, Cognitive, Spiritual). A narrative synthesis approach was employed to identify patterns and themes across the included studies. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on the role of RecT in the care of individuals with ABIs. It highlights the need for more explicit recognition of RecT contributions within interdisciplinary teams and the importance of further research to establish evidence-based practices. Understanding the impact of RecT on the health and well-being of ABI patients is crucial for optimizing their rehabilitation and quality of life.
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 | 0.030 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".