Endringer i daglige aktiviteter, fysisk funksjon og livskvalitet etter hverdagsrehabilitering for voksne i yrkesaktiv alder: en oppfølgingsstudie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of research on daily functioning and quality of life development among par-\nticipants in reablement.\nAim: To examine changes in performance of daily activities and satisfaction with that performance, phy-\nsical function, and health-related quality of life after participation in reablement.\nMethods: A follow-up study including 78 participants (18-65 years). Measurements were performed at\nbaseline and at ten weeks, and then again at six and twelve months. Primary outcomes were activity perfor-\nmance and satisfaction with performance measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure.\nSecondary outcomes were physical function and health-related quality of life. Changes between baseline\nand follow-ups were investigated with paired t-tests.\nResults: The results suggest significant positive changes in activity performance and satisfaction at ten\nweeks (2.98, 3.37, p= <0.001) and after twelve months (2.71, 3.47, p= < 0.001). Positive changes were also\nfound in most dimensions of physical function and health-related quality of life at ten weeks, six and twelve\nmonths.\nConclusion: This study suggests that reablement provides a range of benefits that are important for\npeople in working age with different health challenges both in short and long term. However, due to lack of\ncontrol group, the findings must be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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".