Patients' experiences of disruptions associated with post‐stroke dysarthria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-stroke dysarthria rehabilitation should consider social participation for people with dysarthria, but before this approach can be adopted, an understanding of the psychosocial impact of dysarthria is required. Despite the prevalence of dysarthria as a result of stroke, there is a paucity of research into this communication disorder, particularly studies that address the experiences of individuals. The available literature focuses mainly on the perceptions of others or includes groups of mixed aetiologies. AIMS: To investigate the beliefs and experiences of people with dysarthria as a result of stroke in relation to their speech disorder, and to explore the perceived physical, personal and psychosocial impacts of living with dysarthria. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Participants for this qualitative study were recruited from twelve hospitals in Scotland that served both rural and urban populations and afforded opportunity for comparison. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were carried out over a 12-month period with 24 individuals with varying severity of dysarthria following stroke. The interviews were orthographically transcribed and coded using the NVivo package, which also facilitated identification of patterns using the constant comparative method. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The results of the study indicate that the effects of dysarthria following stroke extend beyond the physiological characteristics of the impairment. In turn, the resulting communication difficulties lead to changes in self-identity, relationships, social and emotional disruptions, and feelings of stigmatization or perceived stigmatization. The impact of dysarthria was found to be disproportionate to the physiological severity, with participants continually striving to get their speech back to 'normal'. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The findings provide insight into the psychosocial impact of dysarthria following stroke. Speech and language therapy interventions need to go beyond the speech impairment to address and promote psychosocial well being, reduce the likelihood of feelings of stigmatization and changes in self-identity, irrespective of the severity of dysarthria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".