Physiotherapeutic interventions aimed at old people in situations of violence: a scope review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Identify physical therapy interventions aimed at old people in situations of violence. Method This is a scope review, in which the following databases/libraries/search engines and gray literature were accessed: VHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, PEDro, BDTD, OpenGrey, OpenThesis, RCAAP, CAPES Thesis and Dissertation Portal, DART-Europe E-theses Portal and Theses Canada Portal. The searches used the descriptors and keywords, which were combined using the Boolean operators OR and AND: Fisioterapeutas, Fisioterapia, “Physical Therapists”, Physiotherapy, “Physical Therapy”, “Physical Therapy Specialty”, “Physical Therapy Modalities”, Rehabilitation, Reabilitação, “Elder Abuse”, “Maus-tratos ao Idoso”, “Physical Abuse”, “Elder Neglect”, “Aged Abuse” e “Elder Mistreatment”. Results Of the 601 records found, 46 were excluded because they were duplicated, and 555 were selected to read the respective titles and abstracts. 548 publications were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 7 papers were pre-selected. Through the Snowballing strategy, one was identified, resulting in a final result of 8 studies. Conclusion Physical therapy interventions aimed at old people in situations of violence include: health education, measures of caregiver stress, community resources, screening/triage, evaluation, identification, therapeutic/rehabilitation plan and reporting. In view of the findings, it is observed that, despite the lack of knowledge on this topic, the physiotherapist plays an essential role in the conduct of cases of violence against old people.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.175 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads 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".