MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392727475 · doi:10.1111/hex.14016

‘Physical well‐being is our top priority’: Healthcare professionals' challenges in supporting psychosocial well‐being in stroke services

2024· article· en· W4392727475 on OpenAlexaff
Felicity Bright, Claire Ibell‐Roberts, Katie Featherstone, Nada Signal, Bobbie‐Jo Wilson, Aileen Collier, Vivian Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Expectations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandAuckland University of Technology, New Zealand
KeywordsPsychosocialPrivilege (computing)Health careNursingContext (archaeology)RehabilitationPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryPhysical therapyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Following stroke, a sense of well-being is critical for quality of life. However, people living with stroke, and health professionals, suggest that well-being is not sufficiently addressed within stroke services, contributing to persistent unmet needs. Knowing that systems and structures shape clinical practice, this study sought to understand how health professionals address well-being, and to examine how the practice context influences care practice. METHODS: Underpinned by Interpretive Description methodology, we interviewed 28 health professionals across multiple disciplines working in stroke services (acute and rehabilitation) throughout New Zealand. Data were analysed using applied tension analysis. RESULTS: Health professionals are managing multiple lines of work in stroke care: biomedical work of investigation, intervention and prevention; clinical work of assessment, monitoring and treatment; and moving people through service. While participants reported working to support well-being, this could be deprioritised amidst the time-oriented pressures of the other lines of work that were privileged within services, rendering it unsupported and invisible. CONCLUSION: Stroke care is shaped by biomedical and organisational imperatives that privilege physical recovery and patient throughput. Health professionals are not provided with the knowledge, skills, time or culture of care that enable them to privilege well-being within their work. This has implications for the well-being of people with stroke, and the well-being of health professionals. In making these discourses and culture visible, and tracing how these impact on clinical practice, we hope to provide insight into why well-being work remains other to the 'core' work of stroke, and what needs to be considered if stroke services are to better support people's well-being. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: People with stroke, family members and people who provide support to people with stroke, and health professionals set priorities for this research. They advised on study conduct and have provided feedback on wider findings from the research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth ExpectationsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207