Implementing and Evaluating a Mobile Phone–Supported and Family-Centered Rehabilitation Program for People With Stroke in Uganda (F@ce 2.0): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a global societal challenge. Annually, 13 million people experience stroke, and the prevalence of stroke is increasing in low-income countries; hence, accessible rehabilitation needs to be developed. Information and communication technology can help by providing access to rehabilitation support through information, self-evaluation, and self-management of rehabilitation. The F@ce 2.0 rehabilitation program provides support in goal-setting and problem-solving strategies through phone calls from the interventionist twice a week and daily SMS text message reminders over 8 weeks to improve performance in valued activities in everyday life. Our hypothesis is that F@ce 2.0 will increase functioning in daily activities and participation in everyday life as well as improve performance and satisfaction in valued daily activities and self-efficacy (ie, confidence in own ability to perform activities) among people living with the consequences of stroke. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to implement F@ce 2.0, a mobile phone-supported and family-centered rehabilitation program, and evaluate its effects on performance in daily activities and participation in everyday life in comparison to ordinary rehabilitation among persons with stroke and their family members in Uganda. An additional aim is to explore experiences of participating in F@ce 2.0 and plausible mechanisms of impact that might explain the potential effects of F@ce 2.0. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare the outcomes of the F@ce 2.0 group and a control group receiving ordinary rehabilitation. Health care professionals will recruit 90 clients from both urban and rural areas. The primary outcomes for persons with stroke are perceived performance in daily activities assessed using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and self-efficacy assessed using the Self-Efficacy Scale; for family members, the primary outcome is caregiver burden evaluated using the Caregiver Burden Scale. Descriptive statistics will be used to present characteristics and outcomes at 3 and 6 months. All statistical analyses comparing the outcomes at the different time points between the F@ce 2.0 and control groups will be performed using intention-to-treat analysis. Qualitative interviews will be used to explore the experiences of persons with stroke and their family members participating in F@ce 2.0, using a grounded theory approach to data collection and analysis. A process evaluation will be conducted using a single-case study design with mixed methods to explore the implementation process. RESULTS: Recruitment and data collection in the randomized controlled trial were initiated in January 2022 and have been completed. The intervention has been provided to 51 participants in the intervention group. Interviews of persons with stroke, family members, and health care professionals have been conducted. Data analysis will be performed during autumn 2024 and spring 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide evidence of the plausible effects of F@ce 2.0 and the process of implementing the program in low-income countries. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60955.
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 | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.006 |
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".