Implementing Activity-Based Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation in Canada: Challenges and Proposed Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activity-based therapy (ABT) is a therapeutic approach with multiple benefits including promoting neurorecovery and reducing the likelihood of secondary complications in people living with spinal cord injury (SCI). Barriers and facilitators to ABT implementation for SCI rehabilitation have been studied from various perspectives through qualitative research. However, these viewpoints have not been synthesized to identify challenges of and strategies for implementing ABT across the Canadian healthcare system. Thus, the purpose of our study was to examine the current state of ABT in Canadian healthcare settings according to users' perspectives. Our main objectives were to compare barriers and facilitators to ABT implementation across Canadian healthcare settings according to users' perspectives and to identify optimal intervention strategies for ABT delivery across the Canadian healthcare system from acute to community care. We searched Scopus, CINAHL, OvidMedline, and other sources. Eligible articles were qualitative or mixed methods studies exploring ABT for adults with SCI in a Canadian healthcare setting. We analyzed qualitative findings through a thematic synthesis followed by a deductive content analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Nine articles were included. The thematic synthesis revealed two main themes: (1) factors influencing acceptance and adaptation of ABT across healthcare settings in Canada and (2) proposed solutions. The deductive analysis applied the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify limited components of behaviour and appropriate interventions. To address ABT implementation challenges across the Canadian healthcare system, evidence-based interventions should target BCW subcategories of reflective motivation, social opportunity, and physical opportunity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".