Development of a Conceptual Framework for Adult Community Rehabilitation Policy, Planning, Care, and Research: A Multimethod Qualitative Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address recognized gaps in community rehabilitation service coordination and advance delivery of rehabilitation services for adults living outside of institutions, we have developed a conceptual framework to inform the design of community rehabilitation policy, planning, care, and research. Employing a multimethod qualitative approach, we developed a draft framework based on a document review as well as interviews with community rehabilitation service and system providers, older people receiving community rehabilitation services, and family caregivers. We then consulted with community rehabilitation service and system providers, older adults, and family caregivers to revise the framework. We identified 194 relevant documents and 30 programs, and we analyzed interview data from 29 service and system providers as well as 6 dyads of older persons and family caregivers. We developed a definition of community rehabilitation and identified 11 components for the draft framework, which was presented to 16 participants for consultation. We used their feedback to revise the terms and definitions for the 11 components. We organized the final set of components into two categories: principles (culturally safe; equity‐focused; evidence‐informed; person and family‐centred; restorative) and organization (appropriate; coordinated; continuity; evaluated; stepped; team‐based). The contextualized, action‐oriented conceptual framework for adult community rehabilitation (CFACR) is supported by older people, family caregivers, and community rehabilitation health system providers. Continued work to refine and validate the components in more population groups and contexts will facilitate implementation and application of the CFACR.
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 | 0.154 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".