Enrollment, adherence and retention rates among musculoskeletal disorders rehabilitation practitioners in knowledge translation studies: a systematic review and meta-regression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practitioners' enrollment, adherence, and retention rates influence estimates of effectiveness in knowledge translation (KT) studies and remain important concerns for implementation researchers. This review aimed to systematically summarize the current evidence on feasibility measures as gauged by enrollment, adherence, and retention rates in KT evaluation studies targeting rehabilitation practitioners treating musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). METHODS: We searched five electronic databases from the inception to October 2022. We included KT studies that 1) had designs recommended by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, 2) targeted rehabilitation practitioners managing patients with MSDs, 3) delivered KT interventions according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change classification, and 4) reported on the feasibility measures (e.g., enrollment, adherence, and retention). Descriptive statistics were conducted to report on study-, practitioners- and intervention-related factors influencing enrollment, adherence, and retention rates. Meta-regression weighted by the sample size of included studies was used to estimate the effect of factors on overall enrollment, adherence, and retention rates. RESULTS: Findings from 33 KT studies reported weighted enrolment, adherence, and retention rate of 82% (range: 32%-100%), 74% (range: 44%-100%), and 65% (range: 36%-100%) respectively for both intervention and control groups. Factors positively influencing enrollment, adherence, and retention rates included designing short study period with short duration intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Intense (e.g., high frequency, short duration) single KT intervention was more appealing for practitioners. Future evaluation studies should clearly report follow-up data, and practitioners' prior training, Results may not apply to non-MSD healthcare providers.
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it