Pushing the limits of recovery in chronic stroke survivors: a descriptive qualitative study of users perceptions of the Queen Square Upper Limb Neurorehabilitation Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Queen Square Upper Limb (QSUL) Neurorehabilitation Programme is a clinical service within the National Health Service in the UK that provides 90-hours of therapy over 3-weeks to stroke survivors with persistent upper limb impairment. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of participants of this programme, including clinicians, stroke survivors and caregivers. Design Descriptive qualitative. Data analysis was performed using a conventional thematic content approach to identify main themes by four researchers to avoid any potential bias or personal motivations, promoting confirmability. Setting Clinical outpatient neurorehabilitation service. Participants Clinicians (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, rehabilitation assistants) involved in the delivery of the QSUL Programme, as well as stroke survivors and caregivers who had participated in the programme were purposively sampled. Each focus group followed a series of semi-structured, open questions that were tailored to the clinical or stroke group. One independent researcher facilitated all focus groups, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription agency. Results Four focus groups were completed: three including stroke survivors (n=16) and caregivers (n=2), and one including clinicians (n=11). The main stroke survivor themes related to psychosocial aspects of the programme (‘you feel valued as an individual’), as well as the behavioural training provided (‘gruelling, yet rewarding’). The main clinician themes also included psychosocial aspects of the programme (‘patient driven ethos—no barriers, no rules’) and knowledge, skills and resources of clinicians (‘it is more than intensity, it is complex’). Conclusions As an intervention, stroke survivors and clinicians consider the QSUL Programme to be both comprehensive and complex. The nature of the interventions in the programme spans psychosocial and behavioural domains. We suggest the future clinical trials of upper limb rehabilitation consider testing the efficacy of these multiple interacting components.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".