Well-Being After Stroke in Canadian Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: After a stroke many people continue to live with their residual impairments and disabilities in the community, which can pose a significant problem for survivors' well-being. The purpose of this research was to investigate patterns of well-being in community-dwelling stroke survivors to identify those factors that restrict and enhance well-being. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted on data from the second wave of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA-2). A national sample of 5395 community-dwelling Canadian seniors (aged > or =65 years) was interviewed for CSHA-2, including 339 stroke survivors (6.3%). Information was collected on health, social and demographic characteristics, and well-being. Comparisons were made between the health and functional status of stroke survivors and community-dwelling seniors who have not experienced a stroke. Multiple regression was used to examine the factors associated with well-being in stroke survivors. RESULTS: Compared with community-dwelling seniors who have not experienced a stroke, stroke survivors report a lower sense of well-being. Stroke survivors are also more likely to be restricted in their physical and cognitive function, to report worse mental health, and to be living with a greater number of comorbid health conditions. Mental health and physical and cognitive disabilities are associated with a reduced sense of well-being in stroke survivors, but social supports and educational resources moderate the impact of functional status on well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Community-dwelling seniors who have had a stroke experience a reduced sense of well-being. However, social resources can help to alleviate the subjective burden of this common neurological condition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".