Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical guidelines and policies recommend exercise after stroke. Person-centred goal setting may facilitate the uptake and maintenance of physical activity. The aim of this work was to design and evaluate a goal setting intervention in an exercise after stroke setting. Five interlinked studies were undertaken within the development and feasibility stages of the MRC framework of complex interventions.\nA systematic review examined 17 observational studies (11 quantitative, six qualitative) for the effects and experiences of goal setting in stroke rehabilitation (study one). Despite some positive effects, no firm conclusion could be reached regarding its effectiveness. Patients and professionals differed in their experiences. Barriers to goal setting outnumbered facilitators. The lack of a standardised goal setting method in stroke rehabilitation was highlighted. A goal setting intervention tailored to exercise after stroke was developed in study two, based on: findings from study one, Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The intervention components were: dedicated time, patient education, patient involvement, regular follow-up, and a purpose-designed workbook. This intervention was piloted in study three alongside validation of the activPAL™ activity monitor with 12 stroke survivors. The intervention did not require modification. Only two variables of the activPAL™ (time spent in sitting and upright) had acceptable validity and reliability. Feasibility of the intervention and users’ experiences were investigated in study four with four stroke survivors, using mixed methods case studies. Intervention delivery and compliance were acceptable with no adverse effects. Findings regarding acceptability and content suggested a need for further work. Participants’ interest and engagement in goal setting were influenced by their familiarity with goal setting, interest in physical activity, functional ability and levels of self-efficacy, highlighting the individualisation required within goal setting. Experiences of exercise professionals involved in exercise after stroke regarding goal setting were explored in study five through three focus groups (n=6; n=6; n=3). Although goal setting was viewed positively, participants felt that its potential effectiveness was not always translated into practice due to barriers encountered: clients’ readiness to change, professionals’ lack of knowledge about stroke and a number of organisational factors. Suggestions to improve goal setting in practice were discussed.\nThis work has enhanced our understanding of goal setting as a complex intervention. Recognition of the potential benefits of goal setting by both service users and providers, amidst the challenges, argues in favour of goal setting in the exercise after stroke setting. Areas for further research have been discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".