## 3 Results
### Impact of Disability, Upper Limb Impairment, Mobility, and Comorbidity on the Model  
A comparison of upper limb impairment, disability, mobility, and comorbidity mean score between the three groups was made and reported in Table 4. The results showed significant differences only in BI, DI, and CIRS-SI between the groups R2 versus R4, and R3 versus R4. Considering the lack of statistical significance between the R2 and R3 groups, a further analysis was made combining the R2 and R3 groups (R2 + R3 group). The logistic regression model was carried out on the three statistically significant variables obtained from the univariate analysis. We found that the model was statistically significant, \(\chi 2(3)=36.096\), \(p<0.001\). As shown in Table 5, among the three predictor variables, only the BI was statistically significant. To obtain a reference value for the only significant variable (BI) in the logistic regression model, an ROC analysis was carried out. According to the Youden index, the obtained cut-off value was equal to 57.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **R2** & **R3** & **R4** & \multirow{2}{*}{_P_} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Post-Hoc Analysis**} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-9}  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & & & **R2 vs. R3** & **R2 vs. R4** & **R3 vs. R4** \\ \hline BI & 49.0 \(\pm\) 10 & 53.0 \(\pm\) 12.6 & 63.0 \(\pm\) 14.3 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.24 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ MI & 59.5 \(\pm\) 14.7 & 57.2 \(\pm\) 11.8 & 57.9 \(\pm\) 8.8 & 0.42 & - & - & - \\ DI & 2.1 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 2.4 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 1.4 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.98 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ CIRS-SI & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.26 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ CIRS-CI & 2.1 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.06 & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values in bold indicate statistical significance (\(p<0.05\)). R2, R3 and R4 indicate groups with two, three, or four patients supervised by one physiotherapist, respectively. SD: standard deviation; BI: Barthel Index; MI: Mortality Index; DI: Deamblation Index; CIRS-CI: Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Comorbidity Index; CIRS-SI: Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Seeverity Index.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Feasibility measurements: rehabilitation dose (tTraining) and supervision time (tSupervision) during a 45-min rehabilitation session, and patients’ satisfaction in the whole sample and the three groups, separately, together with the statistical analysis. Data were obtained from 329 observations.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Whole Group** & **R2** & **R3** & **R4** & \multirow{2}{*}{_p_} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Post-Hoc Analysis**} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-9}  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & & **R2 vs. R3** & **R2 vs. R4** & **R3 vs. R4** \\ \hline tfTraining (min) & 31.3 \(\pm\) 6.4 & 32.8 \(\pm\) 5.0 & 31.9 \(\pm\) 6.0 & 29.6 \(\pm\) 7.2 & **0.007** & \textgreater{}0.99 & **0.04** & **0.01** \\ (Supervision) & 9.7 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 11.0 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 9.7 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 8.9 \(\pm\) 2.1 & \textless{}0.001 & **0.005** & \textless{}0.001 & **0.007** \\ VAS for satisfaction & 8 \(\pm\) 1 & 8 \(\pm\) 2 & 8 \(\pm\) 1 & 8 \(\pm\) 1 & 0.39 & – & – & – \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{10}{l}{R2, R3 and R4 indicate groups with 2, 3 or 4 patients supervised by one physiotherapist, respectively. Values in bold indicate statistical significance (\(p<0.05\)). SD: standard deviation; VAS: Visual analogue scale.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Feasibility measurements: rehabilitation dose (tTraining) and supervision time (tSupervision) during a 45-min rehabilitation session, and patients’ satisfaction in the whole sample and the three groups, separately, together with the statistical analysis. Data were obtained from 329 observations.