Provision of Inpatient Rehabilitation to Individuals with Lower-Limb Amputation in Canada: An Epidemiological Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of individuals with major lower-limb amputation (LLA) who received inpatient rehabilitation in Canadian provinces, their rehabilitation length, and their functional independence level at admission and discharge. Methods Major LLA records from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2012, were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information and linked to National Rehabilitation Reporting System data (Quebec data were unavailable). The proportions of individuals who received inpatient rehabilitation, mean length of stay, and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores (admission and discharge) were calculated. Results A total of 16,114 new individuals had major LLAs in nine Canadian provinces over the study period; 18% received inpatient rehabilitation. The mean (SD) length of stay was 37.3 (25.2) days. Nova Scotia and Ontario had the highest provision of inpatient rehabilitation (n = 235, 28.6% and n = 1779, 23.4%, respectively). Newfoundland and Labrador had the longest mean (SD) inpatient rehabilitation stay, 62.6 (36.6) days. Prince Edward Island had the highest FIM scores at admission and discharge (mean = 105.3, SD = 12.8; mean = 111.3, SD = 12.9 days, respectively). Conclusions We found that 18% of individuals with major LLA received inpatient rehabilitation across nine Canadian provinces. Costs and resource demands may prevent inpatient rehabilitation provision. Novel, cost-effective strategies may facilitate the provision of rehabilitation services. Clinical Relevance Despite the benefits of rehabilitation for individuals with major LLA, especially those whose amputations resulted from a traumatic incident, only 18% of patients with major LLA received inpatient rehabilitation across nine provinces between 2006 and 2012. Provinces with longer durations of inpatient rehabilitation reported higher levels of functional independence when patients with LLA were discharged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".