The Perspectives of Individuals with Chronic Stroke on Motor Recovery: A Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The priorities of individuals with chronic stroke are not always reflected in clinical practice. This study provides insight into meaningful factors related to long-term motor recovery in stroke survivors. Thirty individuals with chronic stroke participated in semi-structured interviews about movement, recovery, and barriers to and facilitators of mobility and paretic arm use. The interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Three categories, the individual, environment, and task, defined five emergent themes. Individual: (1) mindset is a strong and consistent influencer of daily physical activity and overall recovery; (2) severe physical impairment limits physical activity and recovery, regardless of other factors; and (3) a negative perception of disability impacts mindset and willingness to move in public. Environment: (4) social and physical environments influence physical activity and recovery. Task: (5) participation in meaningful activities increases physical activity and promotes long-term recovery. Strategies to incorporate paretic arm use, exercise, and encouragement from others facilitate physical activity. Insufficient paretic limb function, environmental obstacles, and fear are barriers to physical activity. Neurorehabilitation must address the factors that are meaningful to stroke survivors. Building motor capacity is essential and must be integrated with factors such as a positive mindset and proper environment. Individual differences reinforce the need for personalized care.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".