Experiences of persons with spinal cord injury, their family members, and health care providers during transitions in care in Alberta: a qualitative reflexive thematic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: People with Spinal cord injuries (SCI) experience multiple transitions during their healthcare journey. This qualitative study aims to understand experiences of people with SCI, and perceptions from family members, and some healthcare providers on the transitions through the healthcare system in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Using purposive sampling, 49 participants were interviewed, including 22 people with SCI and 27 stakeholders, including family members and providers, a community-based participatory research study was conducted. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic inductive comparative analyses of transcripts along with interviewers' field notes. RESULTS: We identified the following nine overarching themes identifying 9 key areas (1) communication; (2) compassion, (3) healthcare providers' empathy, and humility; (4) continuity of care; (5) adequate preparation for discharge; (6) availability and accessibility of resources in the community; (7) mental health supports; (8) peer support and support from community-based organizations; and (9) education and managing of healing expectations. Interpreting these themes allowed us to identify key areas of opportunity to improve the transitions of people living with SCI in Alberta. CONCLUSIONS: Transitions in care after SCI is a complex phenomenon. In the absence of continuity of care across the healthcare services, people with SCI are susceptible to adverse health outcomes. Addressing the identified gaps within these transitions will improve their quality.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".