Daily Functioning and Quality of Life of Patients One Year Post Stroke: A Comparison of Two Different Follow-Up Care Programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An observational study to examine whether a new follow-up care programme (ATC) specifically aimed at conservation of daily functioning, quality of life and activities realizes better outcomes in stroke patients compared to conventional (ORP) follow-up care. Methods: A total of 93 stroke patients who followed the ATC follow-up care programme or had conventional follow-up care were interviewed at home one-year post stroke using the Barthel Index and RAND-36 questionnaires and a questionnaire about their way of life and medication use. People aged under 60, Barthel < 10 or with haemorrhage were excluded. Results: In this study 25% (ATC) and 29% (ORP) of patients experienced more limitations in activities after one year. In the ATC group the decrease is related to ADL independence and loss of social contacts. ADL independence is correlated with a better quality of life. Health-related quality of life was identical in the two groups. It was observed in both groups that quitting or doing less activities is significantly related to a diminished quality of life. There is no significant difference between the groups in terms of medicine use or follow-up care. More patients visit day centres in the ATC group. Conclusions : No major differences in outcome could be found between the two groups. A relationship between doing diverse activities and quality of life was found in both groups. Perhaps studying the individual needs of stroke patient would be more effective than a standard follow-up care programme. T his needs further investigation. J Neurol Res. 2013;3(1):20-33 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/jnr182e
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".