MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405813106 · doi:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000437

Research Among People Living With Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment in Physiotherapy Journals: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4405813106 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Physical Therapy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineInclusion (mineral)Cognitive impairmentGerontologyCognitionPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Global estimates forecast an increase in the number of people living with dementia (PLWD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Physiotherapists play an important role in the delivery of care to PLWD or MCI; however, physiotherapists report less confidence when working with PLWD or MCI, citing limited educational opportunities. Our scoping review sought to quantify and assess the type of research published in physiotherapy journals related to these groups of people. METHODS: Fifteen journals were selected based on global physiotherapy representation, indexing, and online accessibility of archives. Extraction of all articles published within a decade (2011-2021) for the selected journals was completed. Inclusion criteria: (1) research reports, reviews, case studies, or expert opinion pieces related to PLWD or MCI and (2) published in English. Each article was categorized by type of article, clinical setting, type of dementia, physiotherapy focus, and Sackett's system of hierarchy of evidence. An analysis of trends over time and a bibliometric assessment of research impact were performed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 11 091 articles identified, 67 were included. The most common country of origin was the United States (38.8%). Articles were mainly research reports (70.1%), from a community-dwelling setting (50.8%), with a combined physiotherapy focus (28.4%), and a level IV (37.3%) of hierarchy of evidence. Close to half of studies did not identify the underlying dementia type (43.3%, n = 29), followed by people living with Alzheimer's dementia (28.4%, n = 19), combined groups of PLWD or MCI (20.9%, n = 14), and individuals with only MCI (7.5%, n = 5). Six articles on average related to PLWD or MCI were published annually (32.7 citation per article), and no growing trend was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Few articles published in prominent physiotherapy journals over the last decade were related to PLWD or MCI. Publication trends remained unchanged, and publication origins were from the Americas which impacts generalizability. Physiotherapists should obtain complementary information on care for PLWD or MCI through more general rehabilitation journals. Physiotherapy journals should seek to promote research related to PLWD or MCI through different avenues (eg, special issues) as increased information is needed for clinicians to feel confident in providing informed care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.397 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it