Exploring knowledge and implementation gaps of activity-based therapy in centers lacking specialized spinal cord injury services: understanding therapists’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative exploratory OBJECTIVES: Rehabilitation following spinal cord injury (SCI) is a life-long process involving healthcare in a variety of settings, including facilities lacking SCI-specific services (i.e., non-SCI-specialized centers). Activity-based therapy (ABT) is a neurorestorative approach involving intensive, task-specific movement practice below the injury level. This study explored the existing knowledge, perceptions, and implementation of ABT among physical and occupational therapists working in non-SCI-specialized centers. SETTING: Canadian hospitals and community clinics DESIGN/METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Canadian therapists who worked at non-SCI-specialized centers and treated at least one patient with SCI within the last 18 months. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to develop interview questions that queried therapists' experiences in delivering SCI rehabilitation, their understanding of ABT and experience with its implementation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using interpretive description. RESULTS: Four physical therapists and three occupational therapists, from diverse settings (i.e., acute care, inpatient rehabilitation, long-term care, outpatient rehabilitation, rural outpatient clinic) participated. Three themes were identified: (1) Available knowledge, resources and therapy time in non-SCI-specialized centers challenge ABT implementation, (2) How current therapy practices in non-SCI-specialized centers align with ABT and (3) Desire for ABT knowledge. Although participants were not familiar with the term ABT, it was identified that they were unknowingly incorporating some components of ABT into their practice. Participants expressed a keenness to learn more about ABT. CONCLUSION: Current knowledge and implementation of ABT in non-SCI-specialized centers is limited. Tailoring ABT education to therapists at non-SCI-specialized centers may increase ABT implementation.
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 | 0.036 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".