Marriage after the transition to stroke: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In health and chronic illness, satisfying marriages promote wellbeing and life satisfaction, yet stroke research has focused on either the stroke survivor as the patient or the spouse as a care-giver. Using Pope, Mays and Popay's framework for synthesising qualitative and quantitative methods, we conducted a systematic review and synthesis of 39 peer-reviewed studies to determine what happens to marital relationships after one partner has suffered a stroke. All the articles examined the impact of stroke. Three overarching themes characterise the evolution of marriage after stroke: chaos in the marriage, work to re-establish the marriage and evolution of the marriages. While both the stroke condition itself and the survivors’ need for care undermined the emotional qualities of the relationship for some couples, about two-thirds were able to retain or regain the relationship closeness. As in other chronic illnesses, the relationship closeness and a couple's ability to collaborate contributed to the survivor's recovery and to the satisfaction with life of the stroke survivor and the spouse. Our results underscore the need to consider the quality of, and the qualities of, the relationship between stroke survivors and their spouses. Future research could include a greater focus on qualitative or mixed-methods approaches to explore the interactions between stroke survivors and spouses that impact the wellbeing of both partners.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".