Needs, barriers and facilitators experienced by spouses of people with aphasia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it