Stroke Survivors and their Physiotherapists’ Perceptions of Recovery: A Multiple Methods Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This multiple-methods study examined perceptions of recovery among stroke survivors and their physiotherapists at discharge from an in-patient rehabilitation program. Method: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Chedoke McMaster Stroke Assessment Activity Inventory scores were collected from chart review and the following outcome measures were completed by interview: Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) global recovery, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Physiotherapists also completed the SIS global recovery for each participant. Spearman and Pearson correlations between SIS recovery and observed measures were completed. The stroke survivors had a short interview about their perception of recovery and what recovery meant to them, and their physiotherapists answered two written questions about each participant's recovery. Responses were coded and categorized based on the International Classification of Functioning. Results: A total of 31 stroke survivors with a mean age of 66.6 years (SD 10.7) and six physiotherapists participated. Nineteen stroke survivors were interviewed. The stroke survivors’ SIS recovery scores correlated with FIM-motor change (rs = 0.36 p = 0.04) and the SIS-recovery scores reported by the physiotherapists ( r = 0.51; p < 0.01). In relation to the factors related to recovery, the physiotherapists’ focus was therapeutic mainly considering motor recovery while the stroke survivors’ responses were broad, including being able to achieve recovery goals and nutrition. However, both perceived recovery to include functional activities. Conclusions: SIS global recovery question helps to measure the overall perceived percentage of recovery. However, the complete picture of recovery is only possible with the stroke survivors’ and physiotherapists’ perceptions of recovery and what recovery means to them.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".