A COMPARISON OF HOME-BASED AND HOSPITAL-BASED OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION SERVICES IN ONTARIO, CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine what predicts the setting (hospital- versus home-based) of outpatient therapy services provided to stroke rehabilitation inpatients. To assess the relationship between type of outpatient program attended and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) change. Methods: This study was a retrospective chart review. Stroke patients admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit between January 1, 2009 and March 1, 2016 who subsequently participated in either the home-based or hospital-based outpatient therapy program were included. Data was collected from the National Rehabilitation Reporting System and each outpatient programu2019s administrative dataset. Linear and logistic regression were used to compare receiving home versus hospital outpatient therapy. Results: In total, 360 and 361 inpatients attended the hospital and home-based programs, respectively. Those attending the hospital-based outpatient program were significantly younger, lived closer to the hospital, had shorter inpatient lengths of stay and had higher inpatient FIM scores at both admission and discharge. Compared to the hospital-based program, patients attending the home-based program had significantly greater mean FIM change during outpatient therapy (6.9u00b18.5 versus 4.4u00b16.8, p=0.001) and a shorter median outpatient length of stay (71.0, IQR=59.0-100.0 versus 75.5, IQR=61.8-121.8, p=0.334). Those in the hospital-based program received a greater number of therapy visits than those in the home-based program (41.2u00b131.7 versus 32.5u00b119.3, respectively; p=0.005). Conclusion: Identifying the pathways to integrated, high-quality and efficient stroke care is necessary for optimizing health outcomes for patients. Patients receiving either hospital- or home-based therapy made significant gains as measured using the FIM, with the latter group demonstrating modestly greater gains.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".