A telehealth intervention to promote healthy lifestyles after stroke: The Stroke Coach protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Recurrent stroke is prevalent and associated with high mortality rates, disability, and social and economic costs. Adequate management of risk factors may reduce recurrent stroke; however, many stroke survivors have poor control of risk factors. We have developed a theoretically sound and evidence-based lifestyle modification program called the Stroke Coach, a telephone-based self-management program to improve control of risk factors. Hypothesis Individuals who participate in Stroke Coach will achieve more lifestyle improvements than individuals in an attention controlled Memory Training Program. Design In this single blind randomized controlled trial, 126 community-living stroke survivors will be randomized to Stroke Coach or the attention control group. Participants randomized to the six-month Stroke Coach will receive seven telephone lifestyle coaching sessions, self-management education and practice, and a self-monitoring kit, comprised of a health report card, with blood pressure and activity monitors. Study Outcomes The primary outcome will be measured using the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II. Secondary outcomes include behavioral and physiological risk factors, quality of life, cognitive status, health and social service use. Measurements will be taken at baseline, immediately after the intervention and six-month post-intervention. Summary The results of this trial will add to our understanding of the use of self-management to improve control of risk factors, and may facilitate the development of a larger trial evaluating the effect of Stroke Coach on endpoints such as recurrent stroke or cardiac events as the primary outcome.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.008 |
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".