Activity-Based Interventions to Increase Independence After Stroke In the Hospital Setting: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of disability, commonly resulting in difficulty completing basic and instrumental activities of daily living. Rehabilitation is recommended to improve functional performance; however, it remains unknown whether early (hospital-based) intervention is effective; nor is it known what intervention components should be delivered. OBJECTIVE: We propose a systematic review to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of activity-based interventions, led by occupational therapists, for improving performance of basic activities of daily living (b-ADL) or simple cognitive instrumental activities of daily living (C-IADL) among adults with stroke. Reviewing simple C-IADLs as opposed to instrumental activities of daily living will allow us to review interventions for activities with similar executive functioning demands. By identifying effective interventions, we aim to improve outcomes for stroke survivors by maximizing independence during hospitalization. METHODS: Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials that include adult stroke survivors and tested interventions (delivered in the hospital setting) aiming to improve or promote independence in b-ADLs or C-IADLs. Two reviewers will independently screen full-text articles, and one reviewer will extract data, with a second reviewer providing confirmation. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of studies. The Cochrane Q test will assess heterogeneity among studies, and where appropriate, meta-analysis will then be performed. Measures of outcomes may include global ratings of function (such as the Functional Independence Measure) or specific task performance assessments (such as the Nottingham Dressing Assessment). RESULTS: Results will be presented based on subgroup analyses where possible, including activity type (activity or occupation level), time after stroke (within or after 1 week), and delivery of intervention (group or individualized). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will address the current gap in the literature regarding activity-based interventions for stroke survivors in the inpatient setting and provide clinical guidance on the most effective methods, if any, for improving independence early after stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024562195; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024562195. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/73133.
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 | 0.074 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.010 |
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".