Implementation considerations of aquatic therapy post-stroke: A qualitative study from Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Aquatic therapy is an effective alternative approach to therapy on land in facilitating mobility and independence after a stroke. Despite the evidence reporting on the effectiveness of many aquatic interventions, there is a lack of studies elucidating essential implementation factors for aquatic therapy post-stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A purposive sample of people with lived experience of stroke and healthcare providers participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences with aquatic therapy. A deductive content analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to identify the essential aspects of aquatic therapy implementation post-stroke. RESULTS: Twenty-three participants (9 people with stroke experience and 14 healthcare providers) participated in the study, from across the province of Ontario in Canada. The interview data were all relevant to the five main CFIR constructs and to some of the sub-constructs. Although participants were highly favorable to aquatic therapy, several implementation considerations in terms of costs, program structure, provider qualifications, and pool access were identified at the patient, provider, and system level. CONCLUSION: The CFIR proved valuable in identifying contextual factors relevant to implementing aquatic therapy with the stroke population. These factors included the importance of education, barriers to accessing aquatic therapy in rehabilitation and community settings, and internal and external factors influencing the application of aquatic therapy post-stroke.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".