Developing complex interventions: lessons learned from a pilot study examining strategy training in acute stroke rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of a strategy training clinical trial in a small group of adults with stroke-related cognitive impairments in inpatient rehabilitation, and to explore the impact of strategy training on disability. DESIGN: Non-randomized two-group intervention pilot study. SETTING: Two inpatient rehabilitation units within an academic health centre. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with a primary diagnosis of acute stroke, who were admitted to inpatient rehabilitation and demonstrated cognitive impairments were included. Individuals with severe aphasia; dementia; major depressive disorder, bipolar, or psychotic disorder; recent drug or alcohol abuse; and anticipated length of stay less than five days were excluded. INTERVENTION: Participants received strategy training or an attention control session in addition to usual rehabilitation care. Sessions in both groups were 30-40 minutes daily, five days per week, for the duration of inpatient rehabilitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed feasibility through participants' recruitment and retention; research intervention session number and duration; participants' comprehension and engagement; intervention fidelity; and participants' satisfaction. We assessed disability at study admission, inpatient rehabilitation discharge, 3 and 6 months using the Functional Independence Measure. RESULTS: Participants in both groups (5 per group) received the assigned intervention (>92% planned sessions; >94% fidelity) and completed follow-up testing. Strategy training participants in this small sample demonstrated significantly less disability at six months (M (SE) = 117 (3)) than attention control participants (M(SE) = 96 (14); t 8 = 7.87, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible and acceptable to administer both intervention protocols as an adjunct to acute inpatient rehabilitation, and strategy training shows promise for reducing disability.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".