Exploring the views of people with stroke regarding aerobic exercise participation during inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation: a qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective We aimed to explore views of people with stroke regarding aerobic exercise participation during rehabilitation. Design Qualitative descriptive study informed by a pragmatic worldview. Setting and participants People with stroke attended online or in-person one-on-one semi-structured interviews focused on their general attitudes about aerobic exercise, and their capability, motivation and opportunities to exercise that have or have not been provided during rehabilitation after stroke. Data analysis Codebook thematic analysis was performed by two independent coders. Results: Thirteen people, 2 to 10 months post-stroke participated in the interviews. Six themes were identified: 1) having an exercise program routine and trusting the physiotherapist during rehabilitation facilitated doing exercise ; 2) emotions can make exercise during rehabilitation more or less difficult; 3) limited physical ability post stroke leads to poor exercise self-efficacy and sense of control; 4) knowledge of what exercise is and its benefits affects perseverance in exercising during rehabilitation; 5) personal identity affects perseverance in doing exercises during rehabilitation; and 6) environmental factors facilitate exercise performance (consisting of two sub-themes of supportive social environment promotes exercise participation, and more resources (e.g., time, space, staff, other programs) facilitate exercising during and after rehabilitation). Conclusions People with stroke are more likely to engage in aerobic exercise if it is incorporated into their treatment plan. This novel finding could help ensure physiotherapists prescribe aerobic exercise during stroke rehabilitation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".