Stroke Patients’ Reintegration into Normal Living Post-Discharge from Inpatient Rehabilitation: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stroke rehabilitation professionals have historically focused rehabilitation on physical functions and overlooked the concept of community reintegration after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. The lack of focus on psychosocial functions post-stroke may lead to lower levels of satisfaction during community reintegration. Methods: This integrative review synthesized findings from research literature on stroke patients’ reintegration into the community after inpatient rehabilitation to address three research questions: a) What specific physical and psychosocial functions have been identified as predictors of successful reintegration into normal living after stroke?, b) How do physical and psychosocial functions promote successful reintegration into normal living after stroke?, and c) What factors have been identified that hinder stroke patients’ reintegration into normal living after stroke? Results: A systematic search of literature identified sixteen studies that provided significant context for the research questions. What physical and psychosocial functions of stroke patients included, for example, improved mobility, independence in daily activities, reduced disability, psychological well-being, self-efficacy, social support, and personal relationships. How physical and psychosocial functions promote reintegration included, for example, disability management, emotional well-being, self-care independence, sense of purpose, and employment influence. Factors that hinder stroke patients’ reintegration consisted of longer stride time, impaired balance/mobility, activities limitation, severe stroke, presence of comorbidity, depressive symptoms, speech and language challenges, inadequate self-efficacy, fear of falling, older age, low educational level, lack of social support, and social isolation. Conclusion: Successful community reintegration after stroke requires a shift of focus from rehabilitation interventions that target physical functions to include interventions that address psychosocial functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".