A behavior change program to increase outings delivered during therapy to stroke survivors by community rehabilitation teams: The Out-and-About trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines recommend that outdoor mobility be addressed to increase participation after stroke. AIM: To investigate the efficacy of the Out-and-About program at increasing outings delivered during therapy by community teams, and outings taken by stroke survivors in real life. METHOD: Cluster-randomized trial involving 22 community teams providing stroke rehabilitation. Experimental teams received the Out-and-About program (a behavior change program comprising a training workshop with barrier identification and booster session, printed educational materials, audit, and feedback). Control teams received printed clinical guidelines only. The primary outcome was the percentage of stroke survivors receiving four or more outings during therapy. Secondary outcomes included the number of outings received by stroke survivors during therapy and undertaken in real life. RESULTS: At 12 months after implementation of the behavior change program, 9% of audited experimental group stroke survivors received four or more outings during therapy compared with 5% in the control group (adjusted risk difference 4%, 95% CI - 9 to 17, p = 0.54). They received 1.1 (SD 0.9) outings during therapy compared with 0.6 (SD 1.0) in the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.5, 95% CI - 0.4 to 1.4; p = 0.26). After six months of rehabilitation, observed experimental group stroke survivors took 9.0 (SD 3.0) outings per week in real life compared with 7.4 (SD 4.0) in the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.5, 95% CI - 1.8 to 2.8; p = 0.63). CONCLUSION: The Out-and-About program did not change team or stroke survivor behavior.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".