Satisfaction, user experiences, and initial efficacy of a technology-supported self-management intervention (iSMART) to improve post-stroke functioning: a remoted randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Self-management interventions empower individuals to manage their chronic conditions and daily life after stroke. However, traditional in-person self-management interventions often face transportation and geographical barriers. Digital interventions may offer a solution to address this gap.Objectives This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to examine treatment satisfaction, user experiences, and the initial effect of the interactive Self-Management Augmented by Rehabilitation Technologies (iSMART) intervention in stroke survivors to improve post-stroke functioning.Methods Participants (N = 24) with mild-to-moderate chronic stroke completed a parallel, 2-arm, nonblinded, remote RCT. They were randomly assigned to either a 12-week iSMART or a control intervention (post-stroke information). iSMART was a technology-based self-management intervention involving skill-building education, human coaching, and text messaging. Participants completed a battery measuring treatment satisfaction, use experiences, and function and participation outcomes at baseline and post-intervention.Results iSMART participants expressed greater satisfaction with their treatment (r = 0.387), healthcare environment (r = 0.454), relationships with providers (r = 0.374), and higher expectations for positive treatment outcomes (r = 0.328) than control participants, with medium effect sizes. The iSMART group rated the overall program and its coaching, skill-building, and text messaging components as helpful. iSMART participants showed a medium effect in improving overall post-stroke functioning, but control participants showed a small effect. Moreover, iSMART participants showed moderate-to-large effects in improving hand function (r = 0.699), mobility (r = 0.499), memory and thinking (r = 0.436), communication (r = 0.416), social participation (r = 0.307), community reintegration (r = 0.652), and perceived recovery (r = 0.545).Conclusions Our results provide initial evidence that iSMART supports stroke survivors in managing chronic conditions and enhancing post-stroke functioning.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".