Exploring the experiences of an exercise-based telerehabilitation program among Canadian community-dwelling adults with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Telerehabilitation is emerging as a means for delivering stroke rehabilitation to address unmet lower extremity rehabilitation needs. However, there is currently limited and low-quality evidence supporting the use telerehabilitation interventions for lower extremity recovery after stroke. Thus, we developed an exercise-based telerehabilitation program (TRAIL) for safe and effective promotion of lower extremity function after stroke. This study reports on the qualitative findings from the feasibility study of the TRAIL program. METHODS: email and enrolled into the study based on pre-determined purposeful sampling strategies. RESULTS: Ten participants (6 men, 4 women) completed a semi-structured interview. Two main themes emerged: (i) TRAIL ingredients for success and (ii) telerehabilitation is a viable option for stroke rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Exercise-based telerehabilitation appears to be well-received by men and women post-stroke when social support, professional guidance, and program resources are offered. TRAIL may also prolong the continuum of care that individuals receive once they are discharged back into the community, and contribute to improvements in mobility, lower extremity strength and balance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".