ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of the clinicians' and experts' assessments of rehabilitation service needs for patients in the middle of China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinicians' assessments of patients' rehabilitation needs are crucial, as they directly influence the continuity of care. However, the ability of clinicians to accurately assess these needs remains unclear. The purpose of the study is to compare the assessments of rehabilitation service needs for patients made by clinicians and experts, and to examine any differences across various levels of healthcare institutions. A total of 40 clinical vignettes were used to evaluate the consistency between clinicians and experts. The final analysis included 167 participants, consisting of 164 clinicians from 112 healthcare institutions and three rehabilitation experts from tertiary care hospital in China. The measurements included the general characteristics of the clinicians, the current status of tiered service assessments, and consistency with expert assessments. Kendall's W test was used to analyze the consistency of rehabilitation service needs assessments between clinicians and experts. Among the overall sample, the consistency rate between clinicians and experts was found to be 35.2% (Kendall's W = 0.140, p < 0.001). Compared with county hospitals (consistency rate: 40.4%; Kendall's W = 0.439, p < 0.001), township health centers (consistency rate: 36.1%; Kendall's W = 0.209, p < 0.001) and village health centers (consistency rate: 34.2%; Kendall's W = 0.104, p < 0.001) showed relatively lower consistency between clinicians and experts. The findings indicate that clinicians' ability to assess patients' rehabilitation needs remains suboptimal, particularly in primary healthcare settings such as township and village health centers. Therefore, it is imperative to enhance and standardize clinicians' capabilities in assessing the need for rehabilitation services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.