Impact of Hospitalization on Patients Ability to Perform Basic Activities of Daily Living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional independence is dictated by the ability to perform basic activities of daily living (ADLs). Although hospitalization is associated with impairments in function, we know less about patients’ functional trajectory following hospitalization. We examined patients’ ability to do basic ADLs across pre-admission, admission, and follow-up (discharge or two-weeks post-admission) and determined which factors predicted changes in ADLs at follow-up. A secondary analysis of a small prospective cohort study of older patients (n=83, 50 females, 81 ± 8 years) from the Emergency Department and a Geriatric Unit were included. ADL scores (dressing, walking, bathing, eating, in and out of bed, and using the toilet) and frailty level (via the Clinical Frailty Scale) were measured. Comparing follow-up to pre-admission, patients reported worse ADL scores for dressing (36% of patients), walking (31%), bathing (34%), eating (25%), in and out of bed (37%), and using the toilet (35%). Most patients (59%) had more difficulty with 1+ ADL at follow-up versus pre-admission, with one-fourth of patients having greater difficulty with 3+ ADLs. Older age and higher frailty level were associated with (all, p < .04) worse functional scores for eating, getting in and out of bed, and using the toilet (frailty only) at follow-up versus pre-admission. Here, most inpatients experienced worse difficulty performing multiple basic ADLs after hospital admission, potentially predisposing them for re-hospitalization and functional dependence. Older and frailer patients generally were less likely to recover to pre-admission levels. Hospitalization challenges patients’ ability to perform ADLs in the short-term, post-discharge. Strategies to improve patients’ functional trajectory are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".