MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118771842 · doi:10.1177/000841740907600205

Stroke Patients' Experience with the Australian Health System: A Qualitative Study

2009· article· en· W2118771842 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer White, Parker Magin, Michael Pollack

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchStroke (engine)MedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Consumer feedback about experiences with the health system is integral to service planning and is consistent with growing interest in patient-centred care. PURPOSE: To explore the experiences of community-dwelling stroke survivors at one, three and five years using a community-based, cross-sectional study. METHODS: The quantitative study was comprised of 90 participants post-stroke (3 cohorts, each including 30 participants). Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 12 participants (4 participants from each cohort). This paper presents findings from the qualitative component of the project. FINDINGS: The majority of participants in each cohort were independent and a high proportion required community services. Qualitative data identified varied experiences with the health system, including knowledge about stroke, communication with the health system, and influences on transition home. IMPLICATIONS: The results presented identify the need for ongoing health professional education to enhance stroke service delivery. There is a particular need to address stroke risk-factor modification and to ensure close collaboration with patients and other health professionals with regard to rehabilitation processes. Results identify experiences with health systems up to five years post-stroke. Occupational therapy can play an essential role in post-stroke education and in rehabilitation focused on adjustment to stroke.

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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207