Barriers to and Facilitators of Access and Participation in Community-Based Exercise Programmes from the Perspective of Adults with Post-stroke Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore communication-related experiences with accessing and participating in community-based exercise programmes from the perspective of adults with post-stroke aphasia. METHODS: Adults with mild to severe post-stroke aphasia were recruited from the Aphasia Institute (AI), Toronto, Canada, for a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured, in-depth one-on-one interviews. Participants were asked to identify facilitators of, barriers to, and strategies for joining and participating in exercise programmes. Interview data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Ten adults with mild (40%), moderate (40%), or severe (20%) aphasia participated in this study. The majority of participants were men (60%) aged 60-69 years (40%). Participants experienced a combination of communication, environmental, and personal facilitators of and barriers to accessing and participating in community-based exercise programmes. Strategies to enhance participation can be applied at both programme and individual levels. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may inform clinical practice and programming to optimize access to and participation in community-based exercise programmes for adults with post-stroke aphasia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".