Family caregivers’ perceptions of hospital‐based allied health services post‐stroke: Use of the Measure of Processes of Care to investigate processes of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate family caregiver perceptions of allied health professional processes of care and support in hospital following stroke, and to test an adapted version of the Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC) for its suitability of use in the stroke care setting. METHODS: The first stage involved the adaptation and refinement of the MPOC, designed to measure caregiver perceptions of processes of professional care and support across five care dimensions. The second stage involved mailing out of questionnaires to primary caregivers of stroke survivors. A total of 107 completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. The reliability of the adapted questionnaire was assessed and summary statistics were computed. RESULTS: The reliability of the adapted MPOC was found to be high, with good internal consistency of items within each subscale. Mean scores indicated that caregivers were most likely to report negative perceptions of the way allied health professionals engaged with and supported them, particularly in the area of information provision. CONCLUSION: The number of families being affected by stroke is predicted to rise substantially in the near future. Allied health professionals have a significant role to play in supporting family caregivers. Results highlight caregiver-identified areas of weakness in current clinical practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".