The process of re-engagement in personally valued activities during the two years following stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Engagement in valued activities is often difficult for people who have experienced stroke. A deeper understanding of the process of re-engagement in personally valued activities would be helpful to those designing interventions to address participation post-stroke. Method: Six community-dwelling individuals recovering from a first stroke were interviewed at 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months post-stroke. A grounded theory approach was used to construct a substantive theory of re-engagement in valued activities during this period. Results: Two core concepts, social connection and being in charge were identified. Both led to activity engagement and risk taking to test abilities. These led to lowering of current expectations and activity adaptation which supported hope for recovery and further testing. Alternatively, difficulties perceived to be related to ageing led to disengagement. Conclusions: Rehabilitation practice that addresses and supports autonomy, social connection, risk taking, adaptation and hope among stroke survivors may help individuals regain personally valued activities post-stroke.Implications for RehabilitationThis qualitative study shows that the process of re-engagement in valued activities during the 2 years following stroke was constructed around two core concepts: social connection and being in charge.Rehabilitation practice that supports autonomy, social connection, risk taking, adaptation and hope among stroke survivors may help individuals regain personally valued activities post-stroke.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".