MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2727044766 · doi:10.25419/rcsi.10810367

Self-Awareness And Its Association With Functional Performance In Sub-Acute Stroke: A Cross-Sectional Study

2016· article· en· W2727044766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louise Mairead O'Regan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyAssociation (psychology)Stroke (engine)MedicinePsychologyEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Awareness is the key to successful stroke rehabilitation and in practice poor knowledge of self-awareness and failure to recognise stroke deficits hinders efforts in the rehabilitation of patients. Stroke is associated with both functional and cognitive impairment, but the individual correlation between impairment, daily activities and self-awareness of deficit of stroke patients in the acute and sub-acute environment has yet to be explored. This research study aims to address the gap in the current evidence base, by identifying the degree of patient’s self-awareness of stroke-deficit in a sample of patients with sub-acute stroke and determine the strength of relationship between self-awareness and functional performance. Aim and Objectives The primary aim of this research was to examine the association between self- awareness and functional performance deficits across three domains (Basic ADL; Instrumental ADL and Cognition) in sub-acute stroke. The objectives were: 1. To identify patients’ self-awareness of stroke-deficit within three months of stroke. 2. To investigate the association between functional outcomes of ADL performance and self-awareness. Methods A cross sectional study using a sample of convenience was completed. Nineteen participants admitted to an acute hospital with first event stroke were assessed for awareness of deficit post stroke. Self-awareness was measured using the Self- Regulation Skills Interview (SRSI). A range of outcome measures were used to assess functional and cognitive performance. They included the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), Kettle Test (KT), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB). Results The majority of participants presented with right sided stroke infarct of mild severity (74%). The majority of participants presented with low-moderate levels of awareness (53%) and were female (58%). Significant correlations were demonstrated between the SRSI, MoCA and KT. The strongest correlation was found between the SRSI and the MoCA (r= -0.814), with a strong relationship also demonstrated between the SRSI and the KT (r=0.521). There was no relationship between the SRSI and the MBI (p=0.951; r=-0.015). The association between functional performance outcome measures and other variables was further examined using linear regression analysis. The SRSI explained no variance on the MBI (0%), however explained 23.3% variance on the Kettle Test. Conclusion More than half of the participants in this study presented with only low-moderate self- awareness levels of stroke deficit. There was a strong association between self- awareness, cognition and one component of IADL performance as measured on the KT. No correlation was demonstrated between SRSI and MBI. Implications of Findings Self-awareness deficits are prevalent in the mild sub-acute stroke population. There is a high association between self-awareness, cognition and higher order activities of daily living (IADL). Screening of mild stroke patients for awareness deficits should be included as a standard measure of care. Future research should address the development of a stroke-specific measure of awareness and standardisation of assessment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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