Perceived Benefits for Family Members of Group Participation by Their Relatives with Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Aphasia impacts family members. Therefore family members may also derive indirect benefits when their relative with aphasia chooses to participate in a group. The current study explored the benefits for family members of their relative with aphasia participating in a variety of types groups post-stroke as perceived by family members and their relatives with aphasia. Methods: The study used a qualitative descriptive research approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen participants: six family members and ten adults with aphasia post-stroke. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts. Member checking, peer debriefing, and triangulation of data sources was used to enhance the rigour of the study. Results: The participants identified 10 benefits that family members may experience as a result of their relative with aphasia participating in various types of groups post-stroke: improves communication between the family member and the individual with aphasia at home, provides support for family members, provides an opportunity for social contact for family members, enables access to aphasia-related information, reduces individual with aphasia’s reliance on the family member for socialization, provides an opportunity for the family member to have time on their own, enables the family member to experience positive feelings, allows family members to focus on their role in the family, provides a meaningful role for the family member, and increases participation for the family member. Conclusions: These indirect benefits may help to address some of the psychosocial, information, communication, and participation needs of family members of individuals with aphasia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".