Building a Bridge to the Community: An Integrated Knowledge Translation Approach to Improving Participation in Community-Based Exercise for People After Stroke
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: People who have had a stroke and are living in the community have low levels of physical activity, which reduces their functional capacity and increases risks of developing secondary comorbid conditions. Exercise delivered in community centers can address these low levels of physical activity; however, implementing evidence-based programs to meet the needs of all community stakeholders is challenging. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine implementation factors to facilitate participation in relevant exercise and physical activity for people with chronic health conditions, like stroke. DESIGN: The design consisted of a qualitative observational study using an integrated knowledge translation approach. METHODS: Supported by an integrated knowledge translation approach, a series of focus groups-with stakeholder group representation that included people who had had a stroke and care partners, community organizations (ie, support groups, community center staff), health care providers, and exercise deliverers-was conducted. During the focus groups, participants provided perspectives on factors that could influence implementation effectiveness. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-eight stakeholders participated. Based on the themes, a new implementation model that describes the importance of relationships between community centers, clinicians, and people who have had a stroke is proposed. The development of partnerships facilitates the implementation and delivery of exercise programs for people with ongoing health needs. These partnerships address unmet needs articulated in the focus groups and could fill a gap in the continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study support the need for the community sector to offer a continuing service in partnership with the health system and people with chronic health needs. It indicates the potential of clinicians to partner with people with chronic health conditions and empower them to improve participation in relevant health behaviors, like community-based exercise.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».