Telerehabilitation in Stroke Recovery: A Survey on Access and Willingness to Use Low-Cost Consumer Technologies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Introduction: Early telerehabilitation trials with stroke survivors have shown promising results, but there remains a lack of knowledge of what areas of rehabilitation people with stroke are interested and willing to receive using technology. The purpose of this study was to describe the access to low-cost consumer technologies and willingness to use them to receive rehabilitation services among stroke survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were included in this survey study if they had a stroke, lived in the community, were 19 years of age or older, and able to understand English. Participants completed a study-specific telerehabilitation survey via phone call, mail, in-person, or online. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and survey responses. RESULTS: One hundred two survey responses were returned, representing a 79.1% response rate. The mean age of this urban (67.3%) and rural (32.7%) sample was 67.6 years. The technologies most commonly owned were as follows: televisions (91%), landline telephones (88.0%), and computers (79.0%). A large proportion of the sample reported an interest to receive assessments (58.4%), training and exercise programs (64.0%), and education (61.4%) via telerehabilitation, however, many were not interested to receive telerehabilitation (∼39%) and believed that the quality of care would be less than in-person rehabilitation (71.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of consumer technologies for the delivery of rehabilitation services is both feasible and desirable by stroke survivors. Telerehabilitation services at present should augment and not replace in-person rehabilitation. However, in cases where in-person rehabilitation is neither accessible nor possible, telerehabilitation could serve as an acceptable alternative and is a key area for future research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it