Social participation of relatives post-stroke: the role of rehabilitation and related ethical issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: (1) Describe the challenges facing relatives of persons with stroke in accomplishing their daily activities and social roles (participation). (2) Reflect on the role of rehabilitation for relatives and ethical issues that may emerge following the adoption of a family-centred approach. METHOD: Review of the scientific literature in Medline (1996 to July 2009), Embase (1996 to July 2009) databases using keywords: stroke AND participation AND family OR spouse OR caregivers AND ethics AND burden. Selection criteria were as follows: study must examine the participation of relatives post-stroke (or equivalent concept such as burden), rehabilitation interventions for relatives post-stroke or ethical issues related to being a relative of a person with stroke. Articles not written in English or French were excluded. RESULTS: The sample comprised 17 scientific articles. According to five studies, social participation of relatives is characterised by increased responsibilities and a reduction in interpersonal relationships and leisure. In rehabilitation, there is no consensus regarding what should be done for relatives; guidelines exist but are not applied in practice. Little has been formally reported regarding ethical issues likely to emerge for relatives. CONCLUSIONS: The main impact of stroke is on social roles of relatives such as responsibilities, interpersonal relationships and leisure. The role of rehabilitation and related ethical issues needs further examination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".