The association between inpatient rehabilitation intensity and outcomes after stroke in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Several studies have demonstrated improved outcomes poststroke when higher intensity rehabilitation is provided. Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations advise patients receive 180 min of therapy time per day; however, the exact amount required to reach benefit is unknown.Aims:The primary aim of this study was to determine the association between rehabilitation intensity (RI) and total Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Instrument change. Secondary aims included determining the association between RI and discharge location, 90-day home time, rehabilitation effectiveness, and motor and cognitive FIM change.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted using available administrative databases of acute stroke patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation facilities in Ontario, Canada, from January 2017 to December 2021. RI was defined as number of minutes per day of direct therapy by all providers divided by rehabilitation length of stay. The association between RI and the outcomes of interest were analyzed using regression models with restricted cubic splines.Results:A total of 12,770 individuals were included. Mean age of the sample was 72.6 years, 46.0% of individuals were female, and 87.6% had an ischemic stroke. Mean RI was 74.7 min (range: 5–162 min) per day. Increased RI was associated with an increase in mean FIM change. However, there was diminishing incremental increase after reaching 95 min/day. Increased RI was positively associated with motor and cognitive FIM change, rehabilitation effectiveness, 90-day home time, and discharge to preadmission setting. Higher RI was associated with a lower likelihood of discharge to long-term care.Conclusions:None of the patients met the recommended RI of 180 min/day based on the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations. Despite this, higher intensity was associated with better outcomes. Given that most positive associations were observed with a RI ⩾95 min/day, this may be a more feasible target.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".