The Effect of a Task‐Oriented Walking Intervention on Improving Balance Self‐Efficacy Poststroke: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a task-oriented walking intervention in improving balance self-efficacy in persons with stroke and to determine whether effects were task-specific, influenced by baseline level of self-efficacy and associated with changes in walking and balance capacity. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a two-center, observer-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-one individuals with a residual walking deficit within 1 year of a first or recurrent stroke. INTERVENTION: Task-oriented interventions targeting walking or upper extremity (UE) function were provided three times a week for 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, Six-Minute Walk Test, 5-m walk, Berg Balance Scale, and Timed "Up and Go" administered at baseline and postintervention. RESULTS: The walking intervention was associated with a significantly greater average proportional change in balance self-efficacy than the UE intervention. Treatment effects were largest in persons with low self-efficacy at baseline and for activities relating to tasks practiced. In the walking group, change in balance self-efficacy correlated with change in functional walking capacity (correlation coefficient=0.45, 95% confidence interval=0.16-0.68). Results of multivariable modeling suggested effect modification by the baseline level of depressive symptoms and a prognostic influence of age, sex, comorbidity, time poststroke, and functional mobility on change in self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: Task-oriented walking retraining enhances balance self-efficacy in community-dwelling individuals with chronic stroke. Benefits may be partially the result of improvement in walking capacity. The influence of baseline level of self-efficacy, depressive symptoms, and prognostic variables on treatment effects are of clinical importance and must be verified in future studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".