Implementation, Process, and Preliminary Outcome Evaluation of Two Community Programs for Persons with Stroke and Their Care Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This evaluation compared a new self-management program with land and water exercise (Moving On after STroke or MOST) to a standard education program (Living with Stroke or LWS). PARTICIPANTS: Of 30 persons with stroke (average age 68 and 2 years post stroke), 18 selected MOST and 12 chose LWS. Sixteen care partners participated. METHOD: Assessments at baseline, program completion, and 3-month follow-up included the Reintegration to Normal Living (RNL) Index, Activity-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale, exercise participation, and goal attainment (for the MOST group). Program delivery costs were calculated and focus groups conducted to examine participant expectations and experiences. RESULTS: Social support was an important benefit of both programs, but only MOST participants improved significantly on the RNL (p < .05) and ABC (p < .001). Seventy-eight percent of all short-term personal goals in MOST were achieved, and overall goal attainment was above the expected level. At follow-up, a higher percentage of MOST participants were enrolled in exercise programs (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Although self-management programs with exercise are more costly to deliver than standard educational programs, these preliminary results indicate that such programs may be more effective in helping persons with stroke and care partners deal with the challenges of living with stroke.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".