Identification of rehabilitation needs after a stroke: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Services to meet adequate rehabilitation needs of elderly stroke survivors are not always provided. Indeed, since 1995, in the wake of the Quebec shift to ambulatory care, home care services, mainly those related to rehabilitation of the elderly, are either unavailable or incomplete. The aim of this study was to examine the rehabilitation needs of this clientele from their hospitalization to their reintegration into the community. METHODS: The "Handicap Production Process" conceptual approach was chosen to help identify the rehabilitation needs of persons affected by physical or cognitive disabilities due to the interactions between personal and environmental factors, and (activities of daily living, social roles). This qualitative exploratory study was performed in 2003. Data were collected among four groups of experts: patients, caregivers, health care providers and administrators. Data triangulation was used to ensure a rigorous analysis and validity of the results. RESULTS: Unfulfilled needs could be found in the categories of pertaining to residence, community living, psychological and emotional needs. Indeed, it appears that a psychological follow-up to discuss acceptance and consequences of non-acceptance would facilitate mid-to long-term rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Improving accessibility to healthcare services, respecting priority parking spaces for the disabled as well as promoting public awareness would enable a better social reintegration and recovery of social roles, thus limiting the onset of handicap situations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".