Changes in functioning and health during the first 6-months of the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals with a spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Single-cohort longitudinal survey design. OBJECTIVES: To identify what ongoing impact the COVID-19 pandemic has on functioning and health in individuals with SCI. Using the ICF model as a guide, outcome measures were chosen to explore potential constructs and aspects of health and functioning which may have been affected by regulations. SETTING: Online, Canada. METHODS: Participants provided demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline. They completed standardized online measures at three time points, each roughly one month apart (June, July, and August of 2020). The measures assessed mental health, resilience, boredom, social support, technology use, life space, and participation. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to identify longitudinal changes for each measure. RESULTS: We collected data from 21 participants with SCI (mean age 54 years, 12 male). We found a large effect size for participation (η2 = 0.20), which increased over time. We also found medium effect sizes in both anxiety (η2 = 0.12) and social network usage (η2 = 0.12). Anxiety decreased over time and social networking usage fluctuated slightly but with an increase from time point one to time point two. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that individuals with spinal cord injury appear to be staying relatively stable during the pandemic with improvements in a few key aspects, such as potentially increased participation and decreased anxiety. The results also suggest that it is important to continue fostering ways for individuals with spinal cord injury to stay connected, engaged, and informed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".