MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407270047 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093838

Keeping Active with Texting after Stroke (KATS): a single-arm feasibility and acceptability study of a behavioural intervention to promote community-based physical activity after stroke rehabilitation

2025· article· en· W4407270047 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqui Morris, Linda Irvine, Jenna Breckenridge, Albert Farré, Gözde Özakinci, Andrew Murphy, Stephan U Dombrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of FrederictonUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersChief Scientist Office
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Stroke (engine)RehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical activityPhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a text-message-delivered behavioural intervention to promote and maintain physical activity and recovery after stroke rehabilitation. DESIGN: A single-arm acceptability and feasibility study. SETTING: Community rehabilitation services in two Health Board areas in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: People with stroke who could participate in physical activities and use a mobile phone were recruited during rehabilitation and community rehabilitation. INTERVENTION: Keeping Active with Texting after Stroke (KATS) is an automated text message-delivered intervention informed by behaviour change theory. It delivers a structured sequence of 103 messages over 14 weeks to support the uptake and maintenance of physical activities following stroke rehabilitation. OUTCOMES: Data on recruitment, retention and satisfaction were collected. Semistructured interviews explored intervention acceptability. Preintervention and postintervention measures provided preliminary information on step count, functional independence, mental well-being, self-efficacy and quality of life. RESULTS: 18 men and 13 women were recruited; three withdrew before intervention commencement. All 28 participants who received at least one text message completed the study, indicating 100% retention. Median satisfaction score was 23/25 (range 12-25). All but one participant read and responded to texts, indicating good engagement. Effect sizes (Cohen's d; per cent change) were demonstrated in step count (0.2; 13%), extended activities of daily living (0.24; 8.3%) and mental well-being (0.35; 7%). Participants perceived KATS as acceptable, valuing messages and motivational prompts, but personalised tailoring was desired by some. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment, retention and outcome measure completion were feasible, and KATS was perceived as acceptable. Findings suggest some modifications of messages and goal-setting processes are required to accommodate participants with diverse physical activity capabilities before a definitive trial. Promising indicators of effects were detected, although interpretation must be cautious because the study was not powered to determine efficacy, and there was no control group. Based on these findings, KATS will be further optimised before evaluating effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND PROTOCOL AVAILABILITY: ISRCTN 13704805 https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/keeping-active-with-texting-after-stroke-kats/Protocol available https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13704805?q=13704805&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→