Long-Term Utilization of Rehabilitation-Related Healthcare Services Post-Stroke - A Scoping Review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.094 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.008 |
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".