Community Reintegration Priorities Perceived by Stroke Survivors and Healthcare Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Over half of individuals who survive a stroke experience chronic impairment. Accessing comprehensive health services optimizes community reintegration following hospital discharge. Community-based care over vast regions with low service providers to resident ratios, however, can be challenging. Little is know about perceived priorities for quality community reintegration supports essential in northern, rural, and small urban contexts. Purpose. The aim of the study was to describe priority supports for community reintegration from the perspective of both stroke survivors’ and multidisciplinary healthcare providers’ residing in Northeast Ontario. Methods. Q methodology was used to systematically elicit the viewpoints of 91 participants through the independent sorting of decks of theoretical statement cards, each delineating one of 30 evidence-informed post-stroke community reintegration supports. A mix of quantitative and interpretative qualitative analysis were used to ascertain perceptions of discrete priority supports from the perspective of the two groups of participants. Findings. Stroke survivors identified three priority supports for community reintegration including having a skilled provider, action-orientated alliances, and a focus on wellness. Healthcare providers, including Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, and Physiotherapists, perceived tailored resources, person-centeredness, and promotion of wellbeing, as best enabling community reintegration. Although discrete, all six identified priorities contribute to the constellation of evidence-informed community reintegration supports necessary within the regional stroke network in Northeast Ontario. Implications. Clear, open communication about perceived priorities for community reintegration among stroke survivors and healthcare providers is critical to developing a shared understanding of individualized services following stroke. Collectively, guidance by a skilled provider, patient autonomy, and life enjoyment are essential priorities within coordinated stoke service to achieve the ultimate outcome of community reintegration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".