MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2273608979 · doi:10.1161/str.43.suppl_1.a3005

Abstract 3005: Stroke Support: Survivors Become Givers of Support

2012· article· en· W2273608979 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy Morrison, Gayle Watson, Judith F. Dillon

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsDillon Consulting
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Stroke recoveryPhoneEveningSupport groupAttendanceRehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Stroke recovery is a different experience for every survivor. The recovery process can continue for many years after the initial event. Reintegration into the community can be difficult, as stroke patients have both short and long-term needs. A stroke support group must be flexible enough to assist patients over the time spectrum of their recovery. Our stroke support group was established 21 years ago and has many of its original members still active as leaders. Because younger people are having strokes and have different recovery demands, we were concerned that our program had not evolved to meet the full spectrum of our patients’ needs. Purpose: To evaluate our current program with the goal to update and expand its programming. Methods: Stroke group members were asked for their suggestions to improve the program. A multidisciplinary team then met to review ideas and design action plans. Results: As a result of the suggestions, the following program changes have been made: 1) a new program brochure was created with snapshots of members to reinforce that strokes do not always make people invalids; 2) support group meetings are now scheduled at two times on the same day of the month: during the afternoon for members who want to be home before dark, and in the evening for members (younger stroke survivors/caregivers) who want to attend after work; 3) the older group has changed their name to “Stroke Survivors & Thrivers”, and its members have volunteered to visit patients in the hospital and to make phone calls to stroke patients and their caregivers; 4) creation of a steering committee to facilitate meeting organization; 5) meeting content selection is done by group members; 6) quarterly sessions devoted to open discussions for idea sharing and questions; 7) information is provided via social media sites, email, and the stroke center web site in addition to traditional mailings; and 8) both groups join together to participate in the annual American Heart Association Heart & Stroke Walk. Conclusions: Involving members of the Stroke Support Group to participate in the structure and function of the program has increased member satisfaction, improved attendance at meetings, and allowed the program to reach a broader range of survivors. As a result, the Support Group has become empowered to meet the needs of more stroke survivors and their caregivers in our community - helping them to become Thrivers as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→