Barriers to Physical Activity Between Adults with Stroke and Their Care Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Healthy living includes meeting daily physical activity guidelines. This study compares daily physical activity rates and barriers to physical activity for people with stroke and their partners (spouse or significant other). METHODS: Physical abilities, energy expenditure, daily steps, and barriers to physical activity are evaluated in people who have completed stroke rehabilitation and their partners. RESULTS: Twenty pairs of adults (mean age 69.7 years) participated. Participants with stroke were classified as sedentary, averaging 2,990 (± 2,488) steps per day. Their partners are classified as low active, averaging 6,378 (± 2,149) steps per day. For stroke survivors, physical abilities were positively correlated to daily activity rates. The number of steps walked per day was moderately correlated to 6-minute walk tests (r = 0.550, P < .05), comfortable gait speeds (r = 0.588, P < .05), and fast gait speeds (r = 0.677, P < .01). For care partners, physical abilities were not correlated to daily physical activity. People with stroke report lack of skill as a primary barrier; their partners report lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between physical ability and physical activity is reinforced with this study. The impact of stroke on the family, particularly on time demands of the primary caregiver, suggests the needs of the care partner may not be adequately addressed in the rehabilitation process.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".