Supporting stroke survivors to meet their personal rehabilitation needs in community-based arm rehabilitation: development of initial programme theories to explore what may work for whom, how and under what circumstances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study explored what worked for whom, how and under what circumstances in a community-based augmented arm rehabilitation programme that was designed to enable stroke survivors to meet their personal rehabilitation needs. Design: A mixed methods realist-informed study of data from a randomised controlled feasibility trial, comparing augmented arm rehabilitation after stroke with usual care. The analysis was designed to develop initial programme theories and refine these through triangulation of qualitative and quantitative trial data. Participants with a confirmed stroke diagnosis and stroke-related arm impairment were recruited from five health boards in Scotland. Only data from participants in the augmented group were analysed. The augmented intervention comprised evidence-based arm rehabilitation (27 additional hours over 6 weeks) including self-managed practice, and focused on individual rehabilitation needs identified through the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The COPM indicated to which extent rehabilitation needs were met following the intervention, the Action Research Arm Test provided data on changes in arm function, and qualitative interviews provided information about the context and potential mechanisms of action. Findings: Seventeen stroke survivors (11 males, age range 40-84 years, NIHSS median (IQR) 6 (8)) were included. Median (IQR) COPM Performance and Satisfaction scores (min.1-max.10) improved from pre-intervention 2 (5) to post-intervention 5 (7). Findings suggested that meeting rehabilitation needs was facilitated by strengthening participants' sense of intrinsic motivation (through grounding exercises in everyday activities linked to valued life roles, and enabling them to overcome barriers to self-managed practice), and via therapeutic relationships (through trust and expertise, shared decision-making, encouragement and emotional support). Collectively, these mechanisms enabled stroke survivors to build confidence and gain mastery experience necessary to engage in new self-managed practice routines. Conclusion: This realist-informed study enabled the development of initial programme theories to explain how and in what circumstances the augmented arm rehabilitation intervention may have enabled participants to meet their personal rehabilitation needs. Encouraging participants' sense of intrinsic motivation and building therapeutic relationships appeared instrumental. These initial programme theories require further testing, refinement, and integration with the wider literature.
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 | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".