Rehabilitation needs screening to identify potential beneficiaries: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim is to identify and compare the content of screening tools and needs assessments used to select rehabilitation beneficiaries and to describe the context of their use. Design: Scoping review. Data sources: We systematically searched five indexed databases for studies published from 1 January 2010 to 3 February 2023. Eligibility criteria: We searched for papers published in English only. Papers describe a screening tool or needs assessment aiming to prospectively select potential beneficiaries of rehabilitation services based on a cut-off score or classification system. Data extraction and synthesis: We charted the evidence according to the characteristics of the paper, rehabilitation needs screening context, screening tool and content of the screening tool. A descriptive synthesis is provided for screening methodology, settings, target populations, rehabilitation need types and phases of care. The WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health is used to categorise screening items. Results: We identified 24 tools that use a range of screening methodologies, but mostly questionnaires that are used by health workers. Most tools have been proposed for the identification of a rehabilitation beneficiary among people with selected health conditions assessing the need to access a specific rehabilitation intervention, programme or occupational group. The majority of tools screen for current functioning limitations, and this is often the only screening component. When mapping screening items with the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), almost all ICF chapters for body functions and activities and participation have been included across screening tools, with the following most frequently included ICF categories: emotional functions (b152), acquiring, keeping and terminating a job (d845), sensation of pain (b280) and carrying out daily routine (d230). Conclusions: Rehabilitation need screening tools commonly include the screening for current functioning limitations among people with selected health conditions. A screening tool that is applicable across health conditions and settings is not available.
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 | 0.085 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".