Poster (Health Services, Economics and Policy Change) ID 1977284
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective Activity-based therapies (ABT) are task specific, repetitive and intensive active movement interventions that may improve function and independence for individuals with spinal cord injury. The cost of implementing ABT is an important consideration for rehabilitation facilities interested in providing this intervention. Thus, a scoping review was conducted to evaluate the economic evidence for ABT for the rehabilitation of upper or lower limb impairment. Design/Methods A search of various scientific literature databases (including EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL) was conducted using search terms developed in collaboration with a Medical Librarian. Studies were included if they were economic analyses of an ABT conducted for individuals with upper or lower limb mobility impairment. Titles and abstracts were initially screened by two of the authors followed by a full-text review of remaining articles. Articles included in the review were evaluated for methodological quality and presented descriptively because of the heterogeneity in study design, populations and outcomes. Results Of the 6,031 unique citations originally identified, 14 articles were included after full-text screening. Two-third of the studies were for stroke and half of the studies originated from the US. Robot-assisted therapies represented half of the studies and about a quarter were locomotor training programs. In the stroke and spinal cord injured population, robot-assisted therapies and body supported treadmill therapy appear to be cost-effective respectively. Conclusions There is some evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted therapies and body supported treadmill therapy. However, the evidence is very limited and additional research is 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.871 | 0.507 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".