Utilization of early supported discharge and outpatient rehabilitation services following inpatient stroke rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Studies examining factors associated with patient referral to early supported discharge (ESD)/outpatient rehabilitation (OPR) programs and utilization of ESD/OPR services after discharge from inpatient stroke rehabilitation (IPR) are scarce. Accordingly, we examined utilization of ESD/OPR services following discharge from IPR and patient factors associated with service utilization. Methods Stroke patients discharged from IPR facilities in Alberta between April 2014 and March 2016 were included and followed for one year for ESD/OPR service utilization. Multivariable linear and negative binomial regressions were used to examine association of patients’ factors with ESD/OPR use. Results We included 752 patients (34.4% of 2,187 patients discharged from IPR) who had 40,772 ESD/OPR visits during one year of follow-up in the analysis. Mean and median ESD/OPR visits were 54.2 and 36 visits, respectively. Unadjusted ESD/OPR visits were lower in females and patients aged ≥ 60 years but were similar between urban and rural areas. After adjustment for patient factors, patients in urban areas and discharged home after IPR were associated with 83.5% and 61.9%, respectively, increase in ESD/OPR visits, while having a right-body stroke was associated with 23.5% increase. Older patients used ESD/OPR less than their younger counterparts (1.4% decrease per one year of older age). Available factors explained 12.3% of variation in ESD/OPR use. Conclusion ESD/OPR utilization after IPR in Alberta was low and varied across age and geographic locations. Factors associated with use of ESD/OPR were identified but they could not fully explain variation of ESD/OPR use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".