Post-rehabilitation programme to support upper limb recovery in community-dwelling stroke survivors: a mixed methods cluster-feasibility controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Less than 50% of stroke survivors regain their pre-stroke level of upper limb function, compounded with a lack of long-term rehabilitation options available. The Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Programme (GRASP) is an evidence-based upper limb programme delivered as a standalone programme to stroke survivors. To improve access to such a programme, there is the potential to combine it with a high-utility community-based exercise programme, such as the post-rehabilitation enablement programme (PREP). We aimed to establish if this was feasible to deliver alongside the experience of stroke survivors and therapists, identify any refinements the intervention and the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures. METHODS: A cluster feasibility-controlled trial was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative outcome measures with stroke survivors who were discharged from NHS care. Participants completed PREP for 6 weeks (control), with the intervention group also completing GRASP. The GRASP intervention was refined in between five iterative testing cycles. Focus groups with participants explored the acceptability and feasibility. Individual interviews with intervention therapists explored how feasible it was to embed the intervention into practice, and determine the feasibility of a future larger, mixed methods, randomised controlled trial. Clinical endpoints for upper limb and overall function were explored through the Rating of Everyday Arm use in the Community and Home, 10-metre walk test (10MWT) and quality of life via the Shortened Edinburgh Warwick questionnaire. No further suggestions for intervention design were noted after cycle 4. RESULTS: Recruitment (n=72) and retention levels (84.7%) were high with 61 participants (mean age of 66 years and 49 weeks post-stroke) completing the study. Participants and therapists reported positive acceptability of the intervention with goal setting and family support noted as beneficial. The home exercise programme was noted as challenging. Participants within both groups demonstrated improvements in clinical measures, with the intervention group demonstrating a greater improvement within the Rating of Everyday Arm-use in the Community and Home and the 10MWT. CONCLUSION: This study successfully recruited and retained stroke survivors into an upper limb community-based programme. It poses a feasible delivery mechanism to combine evidence-based upper limb approaches with established physical activity programmes in a future large scale and fully powered study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05090163.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".