Needs, barriers and facilitators experienced by spouses of people with aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about how spouses cope with their needs as a result of their partner's aphasia. This study described spouses' needs and identified the barriers and facilitators to satisfying them. METHODS: Four associations of people with aphasia were approached. Eleven spouses were interviewed in small groups. They described the results of their inquiries and efforts to satisfy their needs because their partner had aphasia (mean time since onset 6 years 8 months) as a result of stroke or surgery. Discussions were transcribed and coded. Excerpts were grouped into categories. RESULTS: Spouses mainly needed support and respite, and perceived their partner to need help for communication and well-being. Personal factors like the availability of close others to provide help were facilitating. However, participants encountered barriers, mainly organisational, i.e. the help needed did not exist. Some needs persisted over time. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm the long-term needs of spouses in adjusting to the aphasia of their partner, as well as the limited services available to them. Many of the needs reflected spouses' concerns about their partner, while others were a consequence of their caregiving role as well as the unavailability of support. Spouses of people with aphasia should have access to support during and after rehabilitation.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".