What matters to program partners when implementing a community-based exercise program for people post-stroke? A theory-based qualitative study and cost analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community-based exercise programs integrating a healthcare-community partnership (CBEP-HCP) can facilitate lifelong exercise participation for people post-stroke. Understanding the process of implementation from multiple perspectives can inform strategies to promote program sustainability. Purpose: To explore stakeholders' experiences with undertaking first-time implementation of a group, task-oriented CBEP-HCP for people post-stroke and describe associated personnel and travel costs. Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study within a pilot randomized controlled trial. In three cities, trained fitness instructors delivered a 12-week CBEP-HCP targeting balance and mobility limitations to people post-stroke at a recreation centre with support from a healthcare partner. Healthcare and recreation managers and personnel at each site participated in semi-structured interviews or focus groups by telephone post-intervention. Interviews and data analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research and Theoretical Domains Framework, for managers and program providers, respectively. We estimated personnel and travel costs associated with implementing the program. Results: Twenty individuals from three sites (4 recreation and 3 healthcare managers, 7 fitness instructors, 3 healthcare partners, and 3 volunteers) participated. We identified two themes related to the decision to partner and implement the program: (1) Program quality and packaging, and cost-benefit comparisons influenced managers' decisions to partner and implement the CBEP-HCP, and (2) Previous experiences and beliefs about program benefits influenced staff decisions to become instructors. We identified two additional themes related to experiences with training and program delivery: (1) Program staff with previous experience and training faced initial role-based challenges that resolved with program delivery, and (2) Organizational capacity to manage program resource requirements influenced managers' decisions to continue the program. Participants identified recommendations related to partnership formation, staff/volunteer selection, training, and delivery of program activities. Costs (in CAD) for first-time program implementation were: healthcare partner ($680); fitness coordinators and instructors ($3,153); and participant transportation (personal vehicle: $283; public transit: $110). Conclusion: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03122626. Registered April 17, 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03122626.
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 | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".