Individualized home-based rehabilitation after stroke in France: a pragmatic study of a community stroke rehabilitation team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Background: Community stroke rehabilitation teams (CSRT) provide an individualized home-based rehabilitation service to patients recovering from stroke. Objective: To examine whether there is an improvement in the social participation of patients who received a rehabilitation program provided by CSRT. The secondary objectives were to show if there is an improvement in the patients’ quality of life and a reduction in the caregiver burden. Methods: Retrospective cohort study, pragmatic in real-care conditions. The rehabilitation program delivered by the CSRT was adapted to the needs of the patients and caregivers. The outcome questionnaires included: the Frenchay Activity Index (FAI), the Minizarit, the EuroQol EQ5D, and the Barthel Index. The primary outcome measure was the FAI. Results: We included 206 patients followed by the CSRT over the 2018–2020 study period, for whom the primary endpoint was present. The mean age was 66.3 ± 12.7 years, the post-stroke delay was 16.4 ± 32.7 months, and the Barthel index was 66.42 ± 12.6. The duration of the rehabilitation program was on average 162 ± 109 days. We observed a significant improvement in the FAI, from 12.9 ± 10.4 to 17.85 ± 12.4 (p < 0.00001); in the EuroQol, from 57.51 ± 19.96 to 66.36 ± 18.87 (p < 0.00001); in the mini-Zarit, from 2.49 ± 1.75 to 2.06 ± 1.67 (p = 0.0002); and in the Barthel index, from 66.42 ± 12.67 to 84.81 ± 23.70 (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients who received a rehabilitation program by the CSRT have an improvement in their social participation, and their informal caregivers have a reduction in their burden.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".