Increasing the delivery of upper limb constraint‐induced movement therapy post‐stroke: A feasibility implementation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few stroke survivors receive upper limb constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT). The aims of this study were to evaluate whether a behaviour change program for occupational therapists increased the number of stroke survivors receiving CIMT, describe the time and process involved in delivering the first program, any adverse events, fidelity and dose of CIMT provided, and upper limb outcomes. METHODS: A feasibility pre-post implementation study design was used, with intervention and measures for therapists and stroke survivors. Intervention for occupational therapists was informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel and included CIMT training, barrier identification, mentoring and a community of practice. Therapists delivered 2-week CIMT programs with 1:1 supervision, first assisting stroke survivors to identify upper limb goals using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The primary outcome was change in the number of stroke survivors receiving CIMT (program reach). Hours associated with program delivery, adverse events and participant repetitions were recorded (program fidelity and dose). Change in motor function was measured (fidelity) using the Motor Assessment Scale (Upper Limb), Box and Block Test, Nine Hole Peg Test and Motor Activity Log at baseline, program completion (2 weeks), 1 and 12 months. RESULTS: Program reach: Sixteen stroke participants were recruited (mean 15.3 months post-stroke, SD 11.9) and six CIMT programs conducted over 24 months, compared to none pre-implementation. The first CIMT program required a mean of 242 hours for preparation and delivery. All programs were student-assisted. Fidelity and dose: Stroke participants completed a mean of 360.6 repetitions/hour (SD 183.7), and 12,719.6 repetitions/program (SD 6,872.8). Statistically significant changes in upper limb motor function were recorded; some changes were clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: The behaviour change program resulted in multiple CIMT programs being delivered safely and with fidelity. Capacity building and skill development took many hours, as did preparation for the first CIMT program.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".