A Community Needs Assessment and Implementation Planning for a Community Exercise Program for Survivors of Stroke: Protocol for a Pilot Hybrid Type I Clinical Effectiveness and Implementation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Physical activity and exercise are important aspects of maintaining health. People with mobility impairments, including survivors of stroke, are less likely to exercise and at greater risk of developing or worsening chronic health conditions. Increasing accessible, desired options for exercise may address the gap in available physical activity programs, provide an opportunity for continued services after rehabilitation, and cultivate social connections for people after stroke and others with mobility impairments. Existing evidence-based community programs for people after stroke target cardiovascular endurance, mobility, walking ability, balance, and education. While much is known about the effectiveness of these programs, it is important to understand the local environment as implementation and sustainment strategies are context-specific. OBJECTIVE: This study protocol aims to evaluate community needs and resources for exercise for adults living with mobility impairments with initial emphasis on survivors of stroke in Richland County, South Carolina. Results will inform a hybrid type I effectiveness and implementation pilot of an evidence-based group exercise program for survivors of stroke. METHODS: The exploration and preparation phases of the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment) implementation model guide the study. A community needs assessment will evaluate the needs and desires of survivors of stroke through qualitative semistructured interviews with survivors of stroke, rehabilitation professionals, and fitness trainers serving people with mobility impairments. Additional data will be collected from survivors of stroke through a survey. Fitness center sites will be assessed through interviews and the Accessibility Instrument Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments inventory. Qualitative data will be evaluated using content analysis and supported by mean survey results. Data will be categorized by the community (outer context), potential participants (outer context), and fitness center (inner context) and evaluate needs, resources, barriers, and facilitators. Results will inform evidence-based exercise program selection, adaptations, and specific local implementation strategies to influence success. Pilot outcome measures for participants (clinical effectiveness), process, and program delivery levels will be identified. An implementation logic model for interventions will be created to reflect the design elements for the pilot and their complex interactions. RESULTS: The study was reviewed by the institutional review board and exempt approved on December 19, 2023. The study data collection began in January 2024 and is projected to be completed in June 2024. A total of 17 participants have been interviewed as of manuscript submission. Results are expected to be published in early 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a needs assessment before implementing it in the community allows for early identification of complex relationships and preplanning to address problems that cannot be anticipated in controlled effectiveness research. Evaluation and preparation prior to implementation of a community exercise program enhance the potential to be successful, valued, and sustained in the community. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55432.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,060 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,053 | 0,008 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».