The Effect of Training Older Adults with Stroke to Use Home-Based Assistive Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated whether an additional home training program on bathing devices would improve the rate of use, personal independence, and service satisfaction of older adults who had experienced strokes. A prospective pretest and posttest randomized control trial design was adopted. Fifty-three older adults who had experienced strokes were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. The prescription of and training in the use of devices was conducted with both groups while they were in the hospital. The intervention group received additional home-based intervention in the use of devices immediately after discharge, but the control group did not. All of the subjects were assessed before discharge and 3 months after discharge using the Functional Independence Measure and the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology. The results showed that the intervention group improved significantly in functioning ( t = 3.89; df = 51; P = .01) and satisfaction ( t = 69.8; df = 29; P = .01) after intervention. The rate of use of bathing devices was relatively higher in the intervention group (96.7%) than in the control group (56.5%). Further studies with extended follow-up services are needed to evaluate the long-term effects of training in the use of assistive devices.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".