Programa de intervención kinésica en el área de cuidados paliativos oncológicos enmarcada dentro del programa interdisciplinario en el Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de la Ciudad de Rosario, provincia de Santa Fe (CEMAR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introducción: El paciente oncológico necesita atención especializada y capacitada, dentro de un equipo interdisciplinario, con tratamientos adaptados a su presentación y evolución. Se creó para ello un Servicio de Kinesiología Oncológica dentro del equipo interdisciplinario del Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de la Ciudad de Rosario, diseñándose una intervención individualizada para evaluar la evolución de los síntomas. Paralelamente se evaluó mediante una encuesta el impacto de su creación entre pacientes y profesionales del equipo. Materiales y métodos: Los pacientes cumplieron un plan de intervención kinésica según condición y presentación clínica durante 2 meses. El efecto de la creación del Servicio se midió con una encuesta de elaboración propia. La evolución de los síntomas se valoró con la escala de Edmonton modificada. La percepción de los profesionales se evaluó con una encuesta de elaboración propia. Resultados: Treinta y ocho adultos (edad media 48.95 ± 9.03 años, 34 sexo femenino), culminaron la intervención. Se observaron mejorías en algunos síntomas postratamiento. El nivel de satisfacción de los pacientes sobre la creación del Servicio fue elevado tanto en la medición inicial como en la segunda evaluación. Los 15 profesionales encuestados consideraron favorable su creación, desde el punto de vista clínico y para la toma de decisiones. Conclusión: La implementación del plan adaptado para pacientes oncológicos resultó positivo, tanto en su opinión como en la de los profesionales, aunque el período de intervención fue breve y sin circuito de derivación específica previo. Se debería considerar la inclusión del kinesiólogo dentro del equipo interdisciplinario para la evaluación, atención y toma de decisiones conjunta, centrada en el beneficio y considerando la complejidad individual. Introduction: Cancer patients require specialized and trained care within an interdisciplinary team, with treatments tailored to their presentation and progress. To this end, an Oncology Physical Therapy Service was created within the CEMAR interdisciplinary team, designing an individualized intervention to assess symptom progression. In parallel, a survey was conducted to assess the effect of its creation among patients and team members. Materials and Methods: Patients completed a physical therapy intervention plan based on their condition and clinical presentation for two months. The impact of the Service’s creation was measured with a self-developed survey. Symptom progression was assessed using the modified Edmonton Scale. Professional perceptions were assessed with a self-developed survey. Results: Thirth eight adults (mean age 48.95 ± 9.03 years, 34 females) completed the intervention. Improvements in some symptoms were observed post-treatment. Patient satisfaction with the creation of the Service was high in both the initial and second evaluations. The 15 professionals surveyed considered the creation of the Service favorable from a clinical and decision-making perspective. Conclusion: The implementation of the adapted plan for cancer patients was positive, both in their opinion and that of the professionals, although the intervention period was brief and there was no specific referral pathway prior to the service. Consideration should be given to including a physical therapist within the interdisciplinary team for joint evaluation, care, and decision-making, focusing on benefit and considering individual complexity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".