Study protocol of a non-randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the F@ce 2.0 programme: a person-centred, ICT-supported and interdisciplinary rehabilitation intervention after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knowledge is missing on use of information and communication technology (ICT), for example, mobile phones/tablets in rehabilitation after stroke. F@ce 2.0 is a person-centred, interdisciplinary intervention supported by ICT. The components of F@ce 2.0 intend to increase performance in daily activities and participation in everyday life for patients with stroke and their significant others. Based on previous feasibility studies, a full-scale evaluation is planned in Sweden. The aim is to implement and evaluate F@ce 2.0, regarding performance of daily activities and participation in everyday life, in comparison with ordinary rehabilitation among persons who have had stroke and significant others. Second, to increase knowledge about how the programme leads to a potential change by studying the implementation process and mechanisms of impact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Twelve rehabilitation teams (intervention n=7; control n=5) will recruit patients (n=160) who receive rehabilitation at home after stroke and their significant others. F@ce 2.0 is an 8-week intervention where patients, together with the team, formulate three activity goals regarding what they need and want to do in daily lives. The patients will receive short messages service (SMS) each morning reminding about goals, and in the evening to rate their performance during the day. Primary outcomes for patients: self-efficacy measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale; perceived performance in daily activities measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Significant others: perceived caregiver burden measured by Caregiver Burden Scale. Qualitative interviews with team members delivering, patients receiving intervention and significant others will explore experiences of F@ce 2.0. A process evaluation applying a case-study design using mixed methods will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority, Stockholm. Knowledge will be created for using ICT for rehabilitation of people after stroke in self-selected activities. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publications, presentations at conferences, and information to stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER DETAILS: NCT04351178
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 | 0.039 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.011 |
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".