‘Getting back to real living’: a qualitative study of the process of community reintegration after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the process of community reintegration over the first year following stroke, from the patient's perspective. DESIGN: Qualitative, longitudinal, grounded theory study involving ten participants. During the first year post discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, 46 one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten participants. Interviews were completed with participants before discharge from inpatient stroke rehabilitation and in their homes at two weeks, three months, six months and one year post discharge. Analysis was guided by grounded theory methods described by Corbin and Strauss. SUBJECTS: Four women and six men (mean age 59.6 ± 18.0, all with left hemiparesis and without aphasia) who had sustained their first hemispheric stroke and were returning to the community following inpatient rehabilitation. RESULTS: The process of community reintegration after stroke involved transitioning through a series of goals: gaining physical function, establishing independence, adjusting expectations and getting back to real living. The ultimate challenge for stroke survivors during this process of community reintegration was to create a balance between their expectations of themselves and their physical capacity to engage in meaningful roles. CONCLUSIONS: Over the first year after stroke, participants reported that the process of community reintegration was marked by ongoing changes in their goals. Formal and informal caregivers need to work with stroke survivors living in the community to facilitate realistic and achievable goal setting. Tools which identify meaningful activities should also be incorporated to provide stroke survivors with the opportunity to contribute and engage with others in the community.
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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".