MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4240593685 · doi:10.24124/2002/bpgub235

Quality of life of stroke survivors who attend a stroke club and their personal caregivers

2002· dissertation· en· W4240593685 on OpenAlexaff
Anne-Marie Draper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)Simon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)Stroke (engine)Life satisfactionMedicinePopulationGerontologyPsychologyPhysical therapyClinical psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke survivors are increasing in numbers and being discharged home sooner, often to the care of an informal personal caregiver. Little is known about the quality of life of community-dwelling stroke survivors who attend a stroke support group and their personal unpaid caregivers in British Columbia. Quantitative questionnaires were used to examine stroke survivor function, caregiver burden, health and quality of life. The B.C stroke survivors' level of function was skewed towards the independent end of the Frail Elderly Functional Assessment (FEF A) scale. Self-reported health was worse on at least 7 of the 8 SF-36 subscales for stroke survivors compared to seven comparison groups, one with similar demographics. Some correlations among mean scores for stroke survivor FEF A and other stroke survivor variables were statistically significant; FEF A with three SF-36 subscales (physical functioning, general health and social function), with one satisfaction dimension (health), and with one quality of life measure (satisfaction with overall quality of life). All correlations among mean scores for each of the three measures of quality of life and 11 dimensions of satisfaction were statistically significant; however, the pattern of response was like the ordinary population on only one correlation. In summary, B.C. stroke survivors: had poor health; were independent in function; function was only somewhat related to their health, satisfaction or quality of life; and used different satisfaction domains from the general population on two of the three measures of quality of life. The B.C caregivers' level of burden was higher on the Caregiver Burden Scale (CBS) than one comparison group of caregivers. The caregivers had similar self-reported health status when compared to two Australian caregivers of stroke survivor studies and had worse self-reported health status on at least 7 of 8 SF-36 scales when compared to a minor medical illness group and the general population. All correlations among mean scores for CBS and caregiver variables were statistically significant; CBS with 8 SF-36 subscales, with 11 domain satisfaction subscales, and with 3 quality of life measures. Some correlations among mean scores for CBS and stroke survivor variables were statistically significant; CBS with stroke survivor FEFA, with stroke survivor SF-36 bodily pain, and with stroke survivor SF-36 general health. All correlations among mean scores for each of the three measures of quality of life and 11 dimensions of satisfaction were statistically significant. However, caregivers' pattern of response was like the general population on only two correlations. In summary, B.C. caregivers: had similar self-reported health to other caregiver groups but was worse than the general population; experienced burden related to their health, domain satisfaction, and quality of life; their burden was related to stroke survivor function; and used different satisfaction domains from the general population on one of the three measures of quality of life.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→