Coming to my own wisdom: A qualitative study exploring the role of the Take Charge intervention in stroke recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThe Take Charge intervention, delivered early after hospital discharge following acute stroke, is effective at improving 12-month health status, independence and advanced activities of daily living. This study aims to provide a deeper understanding of the experiences of receiving Take Charge.DesignThis was a qualitative study nested within a large randomised control trial, the Taking Charge After Stroke (TaCAS) study. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, and we describe our findings using interpretive description.ParticipantsPeople with stroke aged over 18 years, who were participants in the TaCAS study conducted in Aotearoa New Zealand.InterventionTake Charge, a person-centred conversation delivered face-to-face, designed to explore a person's identity and priorities, conducted by a trained facilitator and guided by a workbook.ResultsWe interviewed nine participants, three from each of the three arms of the TaCAS trial - each would have received one, two, or zero Take Charge sessions (the control group). The overall theme of 'Doing things my way/coming to know my own wisdom and expertise' was enabled by 'being listened to and feeling heard' and 'focusing on the goals which were important to me', both strongly expressed by people who received the Take Charge intervention, and hindered by 'medical paternalism' and 'loss of sense of self/"not me"' most commonly expressed by people in the control arm.ConclusionsThe Take Charge intervention empowers people with stroke by enhancing intrinsic motivation. A trusting, therapeutic relationship and non-judgemental facilitation are essential to ensure that the person feels heard.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".