The cognitive augmented mobility program (CAMP): feasibility and preliminary efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Best evidence suggests incorporating task-specific training, aerobics, and strengthening to improve mobility and gait in persons with stroke (PWS). Related research suggests incorporating cognitive problem-solving strategy training may lead to better skill maintenance and transfer. The present study examined the feasibility and preliminary outcomes of an evidence-based cognitive augmented mobility program (CAMP) for PWS. METHODS: A single-arm pre-post and follow-up design was conducted, in two blocks (NCT03683160). Participants completed an exercise intervention with an integrated cognitive strategy component and had weekly 1:1 sessions with a physiotherapist trained in Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP), focusing on goal practice and cognitive strategy use. CAMP consisted of a pre-intervention education and goal-setting session and 16 90-minute sessions held in a group format, 2x/wk for 8 weeks. Assessments were conducted 1 week prior to beginning the intervention, 1 week post-intervention, and at a 4-5 week follow-up. RESULTS: CAMP was found to be feasible with 96% session attendance and strong participant satisfaction. Pre to post-CAMP intervention, a large effect was found for endurance (r = 0.53), balance (r = 0.59), mobility (r = 0.63) and goal attainment (r = 0.63) indicators, and large effects were maintained at follow-up for balance, mobility, and goal attainment. A medium effect was found for functional independence (r = 0.38), gait speed (r = 0.39), and balance confidence (r = 0.38). A small effect was found for participation (r = 0.27) and overall stroke recovery (r = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest CAMP is feasible; there may be a beneficial effect of combining best evidence for mobility and fitness with cognitive strategy training. The positive results for skill maintenance and transfer suggest further investigation is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".