Lifeworld Perspectives Utilizing Assistive Devices: Individuals, Lived Experience following a Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In lifeworld research, the individual's experience of meaning is of primary importance. PURPOSE: This paper explores how individuals post stroke who have a disability, described their personal meaning and lived experiences associated with the use of assistive devices. METHODS: A hermeneutic-phenomenological research approach was used. A conversational interview was conducted with 22 post-stroke individuals regarding their daily experiences utilizing assistive devices. RESULTS: The results showed a dual experience regarding the use of assistive devices, which is often complex and contradictory. The devices were viewed as a prerequisite for well-being and independence but at the same time, the devices gave rise to negative feelings because of the restrictions implied by their use. These dual experiences were explored in relation to the lived body, space, relations to others, and time. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study will facilitate occupational therapists understanding of an individual's experiences utilizing assistive devices and their need for support with this process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".