MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887747240 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/zbntj

Long-Term Utilization of Rehabilitation-Related Healthcare Services Post-Stroke - A Scoping Review protocol

2024· other· en· W6887747240 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careRehabilitationService (business)Protocol (science)Healthcare serviceHealth servicesGrey literature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Healthcare services play a key role in mitigating the long-term multidimensional physical and functional disabilities caused by stroke. Extensive healthcare resources are directed at immediate rehabilitation after the event. Yet, medical and rehabilitative services in the chronic phase are inadequately structured, and stroke survivors in the community report feeling abandoned by the healthcare system. Long-term utilization patterns of healthcare services by people post-stroke are unknown. Research Questions: The purpose of this study is to map the existing body of evidence about long-term utilization of rehabilitation-related healthcare services post-stroke and describe rates of utilization. The specific questions are: 1. What frameworks and contexts exist in the literature documenting long-term healthcare utilization post-stroke? 2. What are the characteristics of the sources of knowledge utilized to study long-term post-stroke service utilization, including: participant characteristics, data sources (e.g. surveys), and countries studied? 3. What approaches are used to monitor and evaluate long-term post-stroke service utilization, including timepoints of assessment, and units used to quantify utilization (e.g. number of visits, hours of services)? 4. What does the literature report about the extent, dose, or rate of utilization of the following rehabilitation services long-term post-stroke: physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, neurology, and physiatry? Methods: Two independent reviewers will search the PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for peer-reviewed and gray literature publications from 2010 to 2023. We will include studies published between 2010 and 2023, involving individuals post-stroke who reported utilizing at least one medical or rehabilitative service related to stroke (such as neurology, physiatry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech and language therapy) at least once during the chronic phase (>6 months). We will iteratively develop charting tables to extract pertinent information. Data will be extracted and quality appraisal of the reviewed papers will be conducted by two reviewers according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. After extracting the data, we will outline the key findings and offer a comprehensive interpretation of the results in relation to the review questions, along with potential implications for research and health policy. Lastly, we will discuss the constraints of our scoping review process.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.407 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207