Stroke survivors’ experiences of team support along their recovery continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A coordinated stroke rehabilitation care team is considered optimal for supporting stroke survivors from diagnosis to recovery. Despite this recognition, many stroke survivors cannot access essential rehabilitation services. Furthermore, there is a lack of understanding of stroke patients' and their caregivers' rehabilitation needs and wishes. We sought to gain insight into healthcare and social structures from the perspective of patients and caregivers that can better support long-term stroke recovery. METHODS: We conducted individual interviews with 24 participants comprised of stroke survivors, spousal caregivers, stroke support group coordinators, and speech pathologist. Participants were recruited through three stroke survivor support groups. An empowerment lens was integrated into data analysis and data interpretation. RESULTS: Two dominant themes captured participants' experiences through stroke survivors' trajectory of care. 1) Experiences of managing stroke. This theme identified stroke survivors and spousal caregivers' experiences with stroke recovery, rehabilitation, and fulfilling unmet needs. 2) Resources of support. This theme described the social and financial support structures drawn upon to assist with stroke rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted a lack of teamwork between stroke survivors, spousal caregivers, and health professionals. This fragmented care was compounded by inequities in rehabilitation programs and health services resulting in what appeared to be a disempowering rehabilitation process. Although stroke recovery groups were a significant source of support for stroke survivors and spousal caregivers, participants perceived they were overlooked, by stroke recovery healthcare providers, as a site for stroke recovery healthcare services. An empowerment approach to stroke rehabilitation involves collaboration between stroke survivors, caregivers, healthcare providers, health services, and existing community stroke support structures. Framing stroke based care through an empowerment lens may serve to address stroke rehabilitation inadequacies and inequities.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".