Living in a Restricted Occupational World: The Occupational Experiences of Stroke Survivors who are Wheelchair Users and Their Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to meet the responsibilities of understanding and enabling occupation, occupational scientists and therapists must conduct research that is framed within an occupational perspective. PURPOSE: This paper reports the results of a qualitative investigation of the occupational experiences of stroke survivors (n = 16) who use wheelchairs and their primary caregivers (n = 15). RESULTS: Inductive analysis of data collected via in-depth interviews resulted in two major themes related to occupation, specifically: living in a restricted occupational world and challenges to participation in occupation. These results highlight the overall experience labeled occupation by default, and the intricate interconnections or spill-over effect between the occupations of stroke survivors and caregivers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In addition to providing empirical support for the importance of having a sense of control over occupation and the connection between occupation and identity, the results have implications for practice aimed at enabling occupation and directions for future research. As well, the results illustrate that occupational therapy services need to extend beyond wheelchair prescription in order to enable occupation with clients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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".