A Community Needs Assessment and Implementation Planning for a Community Exercise Program for Survivors of Stroke: Protocol for a Pilot Hybrid Type I Clinical Effectiveness and Implementation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity and exercise are important aspects of maintaining health. People with mobility impairments, including survivors of stroke, are less likely to exercise and at greater risk of developing or worsening chronic health conditions. Increasing accessible, desired options for exercise may address the gap in available physical activity programs, provide an opportunity for continued services after rehabilitation, and cultivate social connections for people after stroke and others with mobility impairments. Existing evidence-based community programs for people after stroke target cardiovascular endurance, mobility, walking ability, balance, and education. While much is known about the effectiveness of these programs, it is important to understand the local environment as implementation and sustainment strategies are context-specific. OBJECTIVE: This study protocol aims to evaluate community needs and resources for exercise for adults living with mobility impairments with initial emphasis on survivors of stroke in Richland County, South Carolina. Results will inform a hybrid type I effectiveness and implementation pilot of an evidence-based group exercise program for survivors of stroke. METHODS: The exploration and preparation phases of the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment) implementation model guide the study. A community needs assessment will evaluate the needs and desires of survivors of stroke through qualitative semistructured interviews with survivors of stroke, rehabilitation professionals, and fitness trainers serving people with mobility impairments. Additional data will be collected from survivors of stroke through a survey. Fitness center sites will be assessed through interviews and the Accessibility Instrument Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments inventory. Qualitative data will be evaluated using content analysis and supported by mean survey results. Data will be categorized by the community (outer context), potential participants (outer context), and fitness center (inner context) and evaluate needs, resources, barriers, and facilitators. Results will inform evidence-based exercise program selection, adaptations, and specific local implementation strategies to influence success. Pilot outcome measures for participants (clinical effectiveness), process, and program delivery levels will be identified. An implementation logic model for interventions will be created to reflect the design elements for the pilot and their complex interactions. RESULTS: The study was reviewed by the institutional review board and exempt approved on December 19, 2023. The study data collection began in January 2024 and is projected to be completed in June 2024. A total of 17 participants have been interviewed as of manuscript submission. Results are expected to be published in early 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a needs assessment before implementing it in the community allows for early identification of complex relationships and preplanning to address problems that cannot be anticipated in controlled effectiveness research. Evaluation and preparation prior to implementation of a community exercise program enhance the potential to be successful, valued, and sustained in the community. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55432.
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 | 0.060 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.008 |
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".