Stroke survivors with limited walking ability have unique barriers and facilitators to physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Canada. Approximately 73% of stroke survivors experience limited walking ability, requiring a gait aid or assistance. Physical activity is important for secondary stroke prevention, in addition to its benefits for physical and mental health. Little is known about the barriers and facilitators to physical activity in stroke survivors with limited walking ability. METHODS: This qualitative study used inductive thematic analysis of structured interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to physical activity in stroke survivors with limited walking ability. RESULTS: Perceived barriers to physical activity included scarcity of services, societal views, changes in ability, and inclement weather. Perceived facilitators included the desired benefits of physical activity, multidisciplinary rehabilitation services, durable medical equipment, encouragement, positive mindset, and self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Improving access to rehabilitation services in the chronic phase of stroke and increasing the availability of structured exercise programmes are important strategies to address barriers to physical activity in this population. Supporting self-efficacy, addressing disability stigma, and policy changes are also needed to facilitate participation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".