Development of a World Health Organization indicator and corresponding questions to measure effective coverage of rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rehabilitation services are essential health services that should be made available to a population. Measuring effective coverage requires the assessment of whether a population's health services needs are met and whether they are met through quality interventions that produce the desired health gain. We propose a global indicator and corresponding questions to measure effective coverage of rehabilitation through population-based surveys. Methods: An indicator to measure effective coverage of rehabilitation requires a clear definition of rehabilitation service need, utilization, and quality. These terms are defined for a tracer health condition with impact on functioning and for which rehabilitation services are beneficial. We selected chronic primary low back pain as the tracer health condition. Following technical input from experts early 2023, we drafted and cognitively tested a set of questions from August till November 2023 to provide key data points for calculating the number of people living with chronic primary low back pain who received rehabilitation services. To determine whether quality rehabilitation services have been delivered, the health gain or benefit can be measured using a valid functioning measure with a known Minimal Important Change value, i.e. a minimal improvement that is meaningful to the client. We selected the shorter version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 to meet this criterion. Findings: The proposed global indicator is defined as the proportion of adults with chronic primary LBP experiencing limitations in functioning that benefited from rehabilitation. There are eight corresponding questions to calculate the number of adults with chronic primary LBP experiencing limitations in functioning and utilizing rehabilitation services. The assessment of a benefit of received rehabilitation services is based on a change in functioning that is greater than the Minimal Important Change measured with World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item (simple scoring). The Minimal Important Change was set at 6 points following a secondary analysis of studies reporting on rehabilitation outcomes for people with chronic low back pain. Interpretation: We propose a global tracer indicator for measuring effective coverage of rehabilitation at the population level that is captured through population-based surveys. This global indicator uses chronic primary low back pain as the tracer health condition and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item to assess whether quality interventions have been provided that produce the desired health gain. Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".