Exploring patient perspectives of barriers and facilitators to participating in hospital-based stroke rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient participation is recognized as an important element of rehabilitation. However, few studies have used a qualitative lens to specifically examine factors influencing patient participation in stroke rehabilitation. AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate patient perspectives of barriers and facilitators to participating in hospital-based stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 patients, with confirmed diagnoses of stroke, recruited from three separate rehabilitation settings. Analysis of the interviews was guided by a process of interpretive description to identify key barriers and facilitators to participation in stroke rehabilitation. RESULTS: Four main themes and corresponding sub-themes were constructed concerning participation in rehabilitation: (i) Environmental Factors, (ii) Components of Therapy, (iii) Physical and Emotional Well-Being, and (iv) Personal Motivators. An exploratory model of personalized rehabilitation emerged, integrating the themes emerging from the data. DISCUSSION: Personalized rehabilitation can be considered in comparison to person-centred care principles. The barriers and enablers experienced by patients in this study contribute to the existing knowledge of the patient experience of stroke rehabilitation and may be used to inform clinical practices and future research.Implications for RehabilitationThe surrounding environments can facilitate participation in rehabilitation using strategies to reduce noise and disruption and also by encouraging social interactions among patients.Increasing the frequency and consistency of communication with patients about rehabilitation goals and progress could enhance participation.Designing interventions to include activities that are meaningful and focused on the resumption of valued life roles is key to participation.Therapy intensity, time spent sedentary, and the emotional impact of stroke are aspects of rehabilitation patient's feel are neglected.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".