Community Navigation for Stroke Survivors and Their Care Partners: Description and Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate a Community Stroke Navigation program. METHOD: A pretest-post test evaluation design was used. Community-dwelling stroke survivors were offered the services of a Community Stroke Navigator to assist them and their care partners with ongoing needs. Services included case coordination, emotional support, "just in time" education, coaching, advocacy, and accompaniment. The community reintegration and physical and emotional well-being of the stroke survivors and their care partners were measured just prior to and 4 months following service provision. The Community Stroke Navigator's notes and qualitative interviews were analyzed to categorize the interventions. RESULTS: Forty-one stroke survivors and 32 care partners received navigation services. The stroke survivors had experienced their stroke 1 month to 30 years previously (mean 4.7 years, SD 6.4 years). Thirty-five stroke survivors and 26 care partners took part in both the pretest and posttest. Posttest results demonstrated a small improvement in community reintegration among the stroke survivors but no significant change in community reintegration on the part of the caregivers and no alteration in physical and emotional health among either stroke survivors or care partners. CONCLUSION: Community Stroke Navigation has the potential to make an impact on community reintegration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".