Adherence to a Home-Based Exercise Program for Individuals After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although aerobic training (AT) and resistance training (RT) have been shown to improve functional abilities in patients post stroke, few patients participate, with many doing so for only a short duration. PURPOSE: To retrospectively identify factors that affect adherence to a home-based exercise program adapted for stroke patients in a cardiac rehabilitation program during and after program completion. METHODS: Fourteen participants (age 63 ± 3 years, 37 ± 34 months post stroke) attended the rehabilitation center on a weekly (24 weeks) and then monthly (2 months) basis. Patients were required to complete 4 AT and 1 to 2 RT sessions away from the center each week. A 16-item survey exploring adherence to home-based workouts was administered. RESULTS: Seven patients were currently participating (mean time in program, 19.4 ± 8 weeks) and 7 had graduated (mean of 32.8 ± 28 weeks post graduation) from the program. Current participants had higher adherence than graduated participants to AT (100% vs 76%; P < .01) and RT (100% vs 55%; P < .01). The most common factors motivating participants were to improve overall health, improve functional abilities, and enhance confidence and to reduce musculoskeletal issues. The most common factors preventing workouts were lack of motivation, musculoskeletal issues, and fatigue. There was a negative correlation between age and adherence to AT in the graduated group. CONCLUSION: Adherence to home-based exercise is superior during participation in an organized group program, with decline after graduation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".