A feasibility and pilot randomized controlled trial of the “Timing it Right Stroke Family Support Program”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examine feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial of the Timing it Right Stroke Family Support Program (TIRSFSP) and collect pilot data. DESIGN: Multi-site mixed method randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Acute and community care in three Canadian cities. SUBJECTS: Caregivers were family members or friends providing care to individuals who experienced their first stroke. INTERVENTION: The TIRSFSP offered in two formats, self-directed by the caregiver or stroke support person-directed over time, were compared to standard care. MAIN MEASURES: Caregivers completed baseline and follow-up measures 1, 3 and 6 months post-stroke including Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression, Positive Affect, Social Support, and Mastery Scales. We completed in-depth qualitative interviews with caregivers and maintained intervention records describing support provided to each caregiver. RESULTS: Thirty-one caregivers received standard care (n=10), self-directed (n=10), or stroke support person-directed (n=11) interventions. We retained 77% of the sample through 6-months. Key areas of support derived from intervention records (n=11) related to caregiver wellbeing, caregiving strategies, patient wellbeing, community re-integration, and service delivery. Compared to standard care, caregivers receiving the stroke support person-directed intervention reported improvements in perceived support (estimate 3.1, P=.04) and mastery (estimate .35, P=.06). Qualitative caregiver interviews (n=19) reflected the complex interaction between caregiver needs, preferences and available options when reporting on level of satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest the research design is feasible, caregivers' needs are complex, and the support intervention may enhance caregivers' perceived support and mastery. The intervention will be tested further in a large scale trial.
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 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".