MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of the environment on role performance in older stroke survivors living at home

2004· article· en· W2104752314 on OpenAlexaffabout
Denise Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyStroke (engine)GerontologyActivities of daily livingIndependent livingQualitative researchPsychologySample (material)Aging in placeMedicinePhysical therapySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the experiences of older stroke survivors living in Ontario, Canada, in adapting to their changing life roles. A qualitative study using in-depth, focused interviews was conducted with a sample of 18 men and women who had suffered stroke and who lived at home. It aimed to explore interactions among the home environment and disability. Four major themes were uncovered in the data: role adjustment – occupational losses and gains; personal, physical and economical challenges; ‘life is worth living’; and resources and supports. Findings from this study show that stroke survivors lost occupations, modified old ones and regained new ones. There were challenges with which some individuals dealt through modifying the environment and through the use of assistive devices, personal assistance and family support. In other instances, the stroke survivor lived in a world that posed accessibility issues and financial restraints. The study points to the importance of recognizing that stroke survivors use many strategies to regain control over aspects of their home and community environments to enable greater autonomy and participation. This study has implications for health professionals, who can assist stroke survivors on their return to community living.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207