Abstract NS16: What’s Important for Post-Stroke Community Re-integration? Viewpoints of Stroke Survivors and Service Providers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Stroke survivors living in the community require regular, ongoing, and coordinated services to prevent deterioration and maximize health outcomes. Published evidence, often conducted in large urban centres, suggests that community reintegration services are an important component of care for stroke survivors. This evidence, however, often does not address the particular challenges inherent in servicing stroke survivors who reside in smaller urban and rural contexts. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the priorities that are needed to support stroke recovery and community reintegration from the perspectives of survivors and service providers living in four geographic districts in Northeastern Ontario, Canada. Methods: Using Q methodology, 45 service providers, and 43 stroke survivors and their family caregivers ranked 30 theoretical statement cards. Each card identified a feature specific to stroke recovery, community navigation and community reintegration. These statements were generated through a review of health care literature and qualitative data collected from interviews with stroke survivors. Q analysis of the priority ranked statements involved centroid factor analysis and varimax rotation. Results: The three discrete viewpoints of survivors were Role of Skilled Navigators, Survivors as Co-navigators, and Striving for Well-being. The survivors’ consensus perspective, labelled Quality Service, identified the importance of timeliness and appropriateness of service. The three discrete viewpoints for service providers were Role of Skilled Navigators, Survivor-centered Practices, and Optimizing Survivors’ Resources. The consensus perspective of service providers was labelled Involvement of Family Carers. Findings were consistent across all 4 geographic districts. Conclusion: This research suggests that survivors’ and providers’ conceptualized role of community navigators is focused on building upon the strengths and capacity of survivors through cooperative inquiry with multiple stakeholders. A time-sensitive, appropriate, and family involved service structure supports survivor-centric community reintegration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".