A Qualitative Study of Stroke Survivors’ Experience of Sensory Changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Previous literature examined tactile and proprioceptive changes after stroke; however, the lived experience of changes in all sensory systems is still a gap in the literature. PURPOSE.: To gain understanding of stroke survivors' experience of sensory changes and how sensory changes impact participation in daily life activities. METHOD.: This study utilized a qualitative description method. Researchers used semi-structured interviews with probing questions. Inductive content analysis approach was used to analyze the data. Researchers recruited 13 stroke survivors ≤75 years old who participated in a community-based stroke program. FINDINGS.: Emerging themes included daily life impact of sensory function changes, and experience and timing of sensory changes. Participants experienced changes in various sensory systems including touch and proprioception, visual, auditory, and taste. Survivors also reported sensitivity to environmental stimuli. Sensory changes affect survivors' participation in different aspects of daily life activities. Most participants experienced sensory changes right after their stroke. IMPLICATIONS.: Results from this study inform health care providers about stroke survivors' sensory needs to help them design interventions that match their needs.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".