A rapid review protocol of physiotherapy and occupational therapy telerehabilitation to inform ethical and equity concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Telerehabilitation (TR) has emerged as a feasible and promising approach for delivering rehabilitation services remotely, utilizing technology to bridge the gap between healthcare providers and patients. As new modalities of virtual care and health technologies continue to emerge, it is crucial to stay informed about the growing landscape of virtual care to ensure that telehealth service delivery is ethical and equitable, and improves the quality of services and patient outcomes. Objective: The primary objective of this article is to present the protocol of a rapid review to examine the equity-related aspects surrounding the implementation of TR. This includes a comprehensive analysis of the ethical dimensions and fairness concerns linked to this practice. Methods: A rapid review protocol was developed in accordance with Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Guidance. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched between January 2010 and March 2023. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted in two phases (Phase I) by two independent reviewers and subsequently (Phase II) by a single reviewer. Our study will utilize the PROGRESS-Plus and Equitable virtual rehabilitation in the metaverse era framework to identify dimensions where potential inequities may exist within TR interventions. Results: This rapid review is anticipated to enhance our knowledge of TR in the fields of physiotherapy and occupational therapy, with a specific focus on its influence on ethical and equitable practices and providing a foundation for informed decision-making and improved patient care. Conclusion: This rapid review will contribute to the advancement of our understanding of TR within physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Through synthesizing existing evidence, this study not only addresses current gaps in knowledge but also offers valuable insights for future research and clinical practice in TR services.
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) | 0.002 | 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".