Prospects, possibilities and determinants of rehabilitation in nursing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary nursing models address complex human needs, emphasizing prevention, education, and rehabilitation. Nursing and rehabilitation are closely linked, aiming to restore full or partial functionality and support patients in returning to social, family, and professional life. The aim of this study was to analyze the role of nurses in rehabilitation and assess the potential for developing rehabilitation nursing in Poland, considering current trends and the growing demand for qualified staff. A comprehensive literature analysis was conducted, with a particular focus on the Canadian model and its scope in rehabilitation. The results indicate that rehabilitation nursing should expand in response to the needs of an aging society. The introduction of specialized training and the incorporation of rehabilitation nursing courses into higher education programs could significantly contribute to this field's development. The Canadian model demonstrates that proper education and certification in rehabilitation nursing enhance patient care and recovery. Implementing similar solutions in Poland could improve rehabilitation outcomes and overall patient well-being. However, adapting modern nursing models requires systemic changes and a shift in professional perception. Nursing should evolve from a primarily supportive role focused on basic care to an active, leadership-oriented function within the rehabilitation team. A well-trained rehabilitation nurse can significantly improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation, ensuring a more holistic and patient-centered approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".