Student Competition (Knowledge Generation) ID 1975184
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives Implementing activity-based therapy (ABT) across the continuum of care in Canada has proved challenging. The objective of this study was to understand and compare multi-group perspectives on the challenges that hinder implementation of ABT in Canada for people living with spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D). Methods Individuals from six key interest groups (i.e., researchers; persons living with SCI/D; administrators; physical and occupational therapists; community-based exercise trainers; and funders, advocates, and policy experts) who had knowledge of and/or experience with ABT were recruited to participate in focus group interviews that were held over web conferencing. Participants were asked about the barriers and facilitators to practicing ABT. Interview transcripts were analyzed using conventional content analysis followed by a comparative analysis across groups. Results Forty-eight individuals participated in interviews lasting 30-80 minutes. Six themes were identified: 1) Challenge of defining ABT and addressing gaps in knowledge/training. 2) Challenge of standardizing ABT. 3) Challenge of determining the optimal timing of ABT. 4) Challenge of defining, characterizing and achieving high dosage and intensity. 5) Challenge of funding ABT. 6) Challenge of measuring participation and performance in ABT. While all groups acknowledged these six challenges, therapists and community trainers viewed knowledge/training gaps and achieving high dosage and intensity as key challenges. Researchers and advocates emphasized funding as a key challenge. Conclusion Participants highlighted the challenges that limit adoption of ABT into practice within hospital and community settings. Future research should explore avenues to address these challenges to support successful implementation of ABT in Canada.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.844 | 0.649 |
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".