MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224284769 · doi:10.1186/s40814-022-01037-9

Community-based exercise programs incorporating healthcare-community partnerships to improve function post-stroke: feasibility of a 2-group randomized controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4224284769 on OpenAlexafffund
Gayatri Aravind, Kainat Bashir, Jill I. Cameron, Jo-Anne Howe, Susan Jaglal, Mark Bayley, Robert Teasell, Rahim Moineddin, Joanne Zee, Walter P. Wodchis, Alda Tee, Susan Hunter, Nancy M. Salbach

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreWestern UniversityParkwood InstituteQueen's UniversityToronto General HospitalSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialFunction (biology)Stroke (engine)Physical therapyHealth careMedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential for community-based exercise programs supported through healthcare-community partnerships (CBEP-HCPs) to improve function post-stroke, insufficient trial evidence limits widespread program implementation and funding. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a CBEP-HCP compared to a waitlist control group to improve everyday function among people post-stroke. METHODS: We conducted a 3-site, pilot randomized trial with blinded follow-up evaluations at 3, 6, and 10 months. Community-dwelling adults able to walk 10 m were stratified by site and gait speed and randomized (1:1) to a CBEP-HCP or waitlist control group. The CBEP-HCP involved a 1-h, group exercise class, with repetitive and progressive practice of functional balance and mobility tasks, twice a week for 12 weeks. We offered the exercise program to the waitlist group at 10 months. We interviewed 13 participants and 9 caregivers post-intervention and triangulated quantitative and qualitative results. Study outcomes included feasibility of recruitment, interventions, retention, and data collection, and potential effect on everyday function. RESULTS: Thirty-three people with stroke were randomized to the intervention (n = 16) or waitlist group (n = 17). We recruited 1-2 participants/month at each site. Participants preferred being recruited by a familiar healthcare professional. Participants described a 10- or 12-month wait in the control group as too long. The exercise program was implemented per protocol across sites. Five participants (31%) in the intervention group attended fewer than 50% of classes for health reasons. In the intervention and waitlist group, retention was 88% and 82%, respectively, and attendance at 10-month evaluations was 63% and 71%, respectively. Participants described inclement weather, availability of transportation, and long commutes as barriers to attending exercise classes and evaluations. Among participants in the CBEP-HCP who attended ≥ 50% of classes, quantitative and qualitative results suggested an immediate effect of the intervention on balance, balance self-efficacy, lower limb strength, everyday function, and overall health. CONCLUSION: The CBEP-HCP appears feasible and potentially beneficial. Findings will inform protocol revisions to optimize recruitment, and program and evaluation attendance in a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03122626 . Registered April 21, 2017 - retrospectively registered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207