Evaluation of a pilot service designed to provide support following stroke: a randomized cross-over design study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a day service for people aged 18-55 years who had a stroke. DESIGN: A randomized cross-over study design was used, randomly allocating individuals to attend the service for six months followed by a period of no attendance for six months. SETTING: A day service pilot project was launched in Cardiff in July 1995 for people who were aged between 18 and 55 years and had a stroke. It met one day a week. SUBJECTS: Twenty-six participants were recruited to the study between June 1998 and February 2000. Their mean age was 48 years (SD = 7). INTERVENTIONS: The service aimed to offer participants the opportunity to identify and pursue meaningful and realistic opportunities within the community. A range of activities occurred at the service including creative activities and social outings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Barthel ADL Index, Extended ADL Scale, Nottingham Leisure Questionnaire, Short Form 36, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, the Role Checklist and the Semantic Differential Self Concept Scale were used to assess the outcomes from the service. RESULTS: Attending the service increased occupational performance and satisfaction with performance but there was no evidence that depression and anxiety were reduced or that quality of life and self-concept were improved. CONCLUSION: Although there were some gains from attending the service there were also many unmet needs. Further research is required to continue to identify how best to meet the needs of individuals post stroke under retirement age.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".