Technology-Based Health Promotion Training Among Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke is a disease with a heavy social and familial care burden that can cause permanent brain damage, long-term disability, and/or death. This study aimed to determine the effect of technology-based health promotion training on the daily life activities, quality of life, and self-care of stroke patients. The study design was a Randomized Controlled Trial. The study sample included persons diagnosed with stroke diagnosed with stroke and were receiving inpatient treatment in the neurology clinic of a university hospital. The sample size was calculated as a total of 70 patients, 35 interventions and 35 controls. The intervention group patients received telephone-based education and follow-up grounded in Orem’s Self-Care Theory over a 12-week period subsequent to their discharge. The educational content was divided into three distinct categories: self-care needs with regard to health deviations, developmental self-care needs, and universal self-care practices. Data were collected using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, the Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living, Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale, and the Exercise of Self-Care Agency Scale. The Independent Sample T-Test was used for intergroup comparisons, and the Dependent Sample T-Test was used for intragroup pre-test and post-test comparisons. Independent variables affecting the post-test scores, such as age and gender, were analyzed using the multiple linear regression model. The scale sub-dimension variables were compared using the multivariate analysis of variance test according to the groups. When compared with the control group patients after the training, it was determined that there was a statistically significant difference in the intervention group patients’ mean scores for the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale ( t = 11.136, p = .001) and the Exercise of Self-Care Agency Scale ( t = 14.358, p = .000). Training interventions led to enhanced awareness and knowledge about stroke among the intervention group patients. They also fostered the development of healthier lifestyle behaviors and bolstered both self-care abilities and quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".