Getting on with the rest of your life following stroke: a randomized trial of a complex intervention aimed at enhancing life participation post stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To enhance participation post stroke through a structured, community-based program. DESIGN: A controlled trial with random allocation to immediate or four-month delayed entry. SETTING: Eleven community sites in seven Canadian cities. SUBJECTS: Community dwelling persons within five years of stroke onset, cognitively intact, able to toilet independently. INTERVENTIONS: Evidence-based program delivered in three 12-week sessions including exercise and project-based activities, done as individuals and in groups. MAIN MEASURES: Hours spent per week in meaningful activities outside of the home and Reintegration to Normal Living Index; Stroke-Specific Geriatric Depression Scale, Apathy Scale, gait speed, EuroQuol EQ-5D, and Preference-Based Stroke Index. All measures were transformed to a scale from 0 to 100. Assessments prior to randomization, after the first session at three months, six months, 12 months, and 15 months. RESULTS: A total of 186 persons were randomized. The between-group analysis showed no disadvantage to waiting and so groups were combined and a within-person analysis was carried out at three time points. There were statistically significant increases in all study outcomes on average over all persons. Over 45% of people met or exceeded the pre-specified target of a three hour per week increase in meaningful activity and this most often took a full year of intervention to achieve. Greatest gains were in satisfaction with community integration (mean 4.78; 95% CI: 2.01 to 7.55) and stroke-specific health-related quality of life (mean 4.14; 95% CI: 2.31 to 5.97). CONCLUSIONS: Community-based programs targeting participation are feasible and effective, but stroke survivors require time to achieve meaningful gains.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".