Barriers and Facilitators to Aerobic Exercise Implementation in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Aerobic exercise is a recommended part of stroke best practices; yet, access to aerobic exercise programs within stroke rehabilitation remains limited and inconsistent. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe the nature and extent of barriers and facilitators to aerobic exercise implementation with adults post-stroke as reported by health care professionals. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and AMED Allied and Complementary Medicine were searched from inception to October 16, 2019. Research studies that examined health care professionals' barriers and facilitators to aerobic exercise implementation in adults post-stroke were included. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening, full-text evaluation, data extraction, and quality appraisal. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to map the identified barriers or facilitators and to analyze and interpret the results. RESULTS: Four studies were included in the review. All studies involved surveys conducted among physical therapists and reported barriers related to "environmental context and resources" (eg, lack of equipment, time, staff), insufficient "knowledge" and "skills" (eg, safe aerobic exercise prescription and implementation), "beliefs about capabilities" (eg, uncertainty about exercise intensity and screening tools), and professional role and identity (eg, aerobic exercise not a priority). Access to and continued education in structured aerobic exercise programs and safety monitoring were identified facilitators. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Some of the identified barriers could be overcome with modeling and training in best practice, while others may require interventions targeting organizational environment and leadership. Future knowledge translation interventions should target the identified barriers and facilitators to implementing aerobic exercise.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A312).
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 | 0.039 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".