Understanding significant others’ experience of aphasia and rehabilitation following stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is currently unknown how rehabilitation services contribute to significant others' adjustment to stroke with aphasia since their experience of rehabilitation has not been studied before. The purpose of this study was thus to understand significant others' experience of aphasia rehabilitation within the context of post-stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: Individual interviews were carried out with 12 significant others of persons who became aphasic as a result of a stroke and were discharged from rehabilitation in the past 3 months. Data were analyzed with a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: "Being centered on the aphasic person" was the core category triggered by the significant other's perception of the stroke survivor's vulnerability and his/her feelings of attachment towards that person. Through their interactions with professionals, significant others assumed that rehabilitation was also centered on the aphasic person; a perspective that was reinforced. Consequently, significant others participated in rehabilitation as caregivers and expected rehabilitation to meet their caregiver needs but not other personal and relational needs. Their appraisal of rehabilitation was thus related to the satisfaction or not of caregiver needs. CONCLUSIONS: With a greater sensitivity to significant others who focus on the stroke survivor and disregard their own needs, rehabilitation professionals and especially speech-language therapists, can assist families in reestablishing communication and satisfying relationships which are affected because of aphasia. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: This qualitative study shows that significant others of aphasic stroke survivors experience rehabilitation as services focused on the person who had the stroke. Significant others' satisfaction with rehabilitation is not related to the fulfillment of their personal (e.g. resuming their activities) and relational needs (e.g. good communication with the person with aphasia). When offering interventions targeting significant others' needs, rehabilitation professionals should emphasize the rationale for these interventions so that significant others grasp the intention and potential benefits of these offers.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".