Challenges in selecting relevant outcomes when evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation inteventions for persons with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions has traditionally been measured using tests of physical capacity. The rehabilitation process, however, comprises many ingredients that set up a cascade of effects that impact beyond simple physical capacity. In this thesis, the vehicle of a clinical trial conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a walking intervention for persons with chronic stroke was used to illustrate the array of outcomes that are impacted upon by a rehabilitation intervention. First, the walking intervention was proven effective in enhancing two traditional capacity outcomes: functional walking capacity and walking speed. The intervention primarily benefited functional walking capacity, measured as the distance a person can walk in six minutes, indicating the task-specificity of training effects. Persons with a baseline walking deficit of moderate severity responded to the walking intervention to a greater extent than persons with mild or severe impairment. Following, the role of a less traditional construct---self-efficacy for balance activities---as an outcome of stroke rehabilitation was evaluated. Self-efficacy reflects perceived ability and it is measured not by direct testing but rather by self-report. It was hypothesized that the walking intervention would benefit balance self-efficacy in addition to functional walking capacity given that mastering a task is expected to enhance self-efficacy for that task. Thesis findings supported this hypothesis and suggested that the level of depressive symptoms may modify effects. Self-efficacy was also expected to influence physical functioning as much as physical capacity and this hypothesis was verified. Self-efficacy was also an independent predictor of perceived health status. Additional associations were observed between balance self-efficacy and age, gender, depression and functional capacity. Before recommending the evaluation of balance self-efficacy in rehabilitation
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 | 0.388 | 0.540 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".