A multinational online survey of the goal setting practice of rehabilitation staff with stroke survivors with aphasia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Goal setting is an essential rehabilitation activity. However, multidisciplinary rehabilitation staff goal-setting practice with stroke survivors with aphasia and associated training needs are not well understood.Methods We designed, piloted, and conducted a survey of stroke rehabilitation staff in the UK, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Canada, Ireland. Analysis included descriptive statistics, chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests, and qualitative content analysis.Results We received 251 responses from 118 SLTs and 133 non-SLTs. Most reported setting goals with most or all people with aphasia (78%, 197/251); 57% (138/244) rarely or never provided an accessible copy of goals. All disciplines reported significantly less confidence setting goals with people with aphasia than without aphasia (p = 0.012, n = 119). Barriers to goal setting included the communication impairment (especially severe aphasia) and poor insight. Staff described feeling ill-equipped to support people with aphasia in goal setting; only 27% (67/251) had accessed training to do so.Conclusions Rehabilitation staff described involving stroke survivors with aphasia in goal setting but lacked confidence doing so and receive inadequate training and support. Training should target multidisciplinary staff confidence and communication support strategies and resources so that people with aphasia and families are supported as goal-setting partners.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it