A qualitative study exploring the experiences of individuals living with stroke and their caregivers with community-based poststroke services: A critical need for action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unmet poststroke service needs are common among people living in the community. Community-Based Stroke Services (CBSS) have the potential to address these unmet needs, yet there are no comprehensive guidelines to inform the design of CBSS, and they remain an understudied aspect of stroke care. This study aimed to describe the perceived barriers to accessing community-based stroke services, benefits from these programs and opportunities to address unmet needs. METHODS: This was a qualitative descriptive study with interviews and focus groups conducted with people living with stroke and caregivers. Data were transcribed and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Eighty-five individuals with stroke and caregivers participated. Four key overarching themes were identified: facilitators and barriers to accessing and participating in community-based stroke services; components of helpful and unhelpful stroke services; perceived benefits of community-based stroke services; and opportunities to address unmet stroke service needs. INTERPRETATIONS: The findings resonate with and extend prior literature, suggesting a critical need for personalized and tailored stroke services to address persistent unmet needs. We call on relevant stakeholders, such as policymakers, providers, and researchers, to move these insights into action through comprehensive guidelines, practice standards and interventions to personalize and tailor CBSS.
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 | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".