Stroke Survivors’ Experiences and Needs during the Decision-making Process Considering Rehabilitation Options: A Pilot Descriptive Study in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The purposes of the present study were to describe stroke survivors' experiences and to identify their support needs when faced with decisions about rehabilitation. Methods: Based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework needs assessment, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 stroke survivors. The degree of participation in decision-making and anxiety were assessed quantitatively. All interview transcripts describing their experiences and emotions were qualitatively analyzed. Results: All participants had hemiplegia but could perform their daily activities unassisted. Most participants played an active role in decision-making, but 13 patients felt some anxiety when choosing chronic-phase rehabilitation programs. Qualitative analysis identified 19 codes, of which 13 were categorized into the four factors of knowledge, values, certainty, and support. The codes related to patient feelings of anxiety and insecurity about making decisions were "lack of information about options," difficulty in "selecting appropriate information," and "lack of support" from medical staff. Trustworthy specialist support and prior knowledge of rehabilitation were identified as factors that could help patients feel more secure about making decisions. Conclusions: To support stroke survivors in their decision-making about rehabilitation, each patient should be given a long-term perspective on stroke rehabilitation and sufficient information on rehabilitation options tailored to their individual needs. Decision aids for stroke survivors built on these findings will be used in clinical practice, and their efficacy will be verified in future studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".