Facilitators of and Barriers to Providing Access to Community-Based Exercise Programmes for Adults with Post-Stroke Aphasia from the Perspective of Programme Representatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Individuals with post-stroke aphasia (PSA) engage in inadequate levels of physical activity (PA), hindering physical and psychosocial recovery. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent to which community-based exercise programmes (CBEPs) in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are accessible to adults living with PSA and the characteristics of such programmes from the perspective of CBEP representatives. Methods: A cross-sectional, Web-based survey was administered to representatives of CBEPs open to adults post-stroke in the GTA to identify the CBEPs' relevant characteristics and perceived facilitators of and barriers to accessibility. Results: A total of 17 eligible CBEP representatives completed the survey, for a response rate of 32%. The most commonly used exercise instructors were personal trainers (8; 47%). Of the 17 eligible CBEP representatives, 10 (59%) identified a lack of qualified personnel as the main barrier to providing access to adults with PSA. Verbal strategies were among the most commonly used methods of communication with adults with PSA (16; 94%), and written material was the least used (5; 29%). Conclusion: Understanding the common facilitators of and barriers to providing adults with PSA access to CBEPs will assist programme developers to improve the accessibility of CBEPs and facilitate PA in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".