Interprofessional Stroke Rehabilitation for Stroke Survivors Using Home Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare a specialized interprofessional team approach to community-based stroke rehabilitation with usual home care for stroke survivors using home care services. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of 101 community-living stroke survivors (<18 months post-stroke) using home care services. Subjects were randomized to intervention (n=52) or control (n=49) groups. The intervention was a 12-month specialized, evidence-based rehabilitation strategy involving an interprofessional team. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life and functioning (SF-36) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes were number of strokes during the 12-month follow-up, and changes in community reintegration (RNLI), perceived social support (PRQ85-Part 2), anxiety and depressive symptoms (Kessler-10), cognitive function (SPMSQ), and costs of use of health services from baseline to 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 82 subjects completed the 12-month follow-up. Compared with the usual care group, stroke survivors in the intervention group showed clinically important (although not statistically significant) greater improvements from baseline in mean SF-36 physical functioning score (5.87, 95% CI -3.98 to 15.7; p=0.24) and social functioning score (9.03, CI-7.50 to 25.6; p=0.28). The groups did not differ for any of the secondary effectiveness outcomes. There was a higher total per-person costs of use of health services in the intervention group compared to usual home care although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: A 12-month specialized, interprofessional team is a feasible and acceptable approach to community-based stroke rehabilitation that produced greater improvements in quality of life compared to usual home care. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00463229.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".