Investigating the Influence of the Patient-Therapist Relationship on Adherence to Assistive Devices in Stroke Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The patient therapist relationship (PTR) is a critical component of treatment delivery in health care settings. This construct has potential to inform treatment efficacy and adherence to assistive devices (ADs) in stroke rehabilitation. This study aimed to evaluate the significance of the PTR in promoting adherence to AD recommendations and identify barriers patients encounter in using ADs. Additionally, we investigated whether the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR) questionnaire captured information about the PTR that could enhance adherence. Four therapists and four stroke patients participated in interviews centered on therapist roles, patient experiences, and approaches to enhance adherence. Therapists were asked to evaluate the WAI-SR’s ability to capture features of the PTR. Interviews were subject to thematic analysis. Therapists emphasized collaborative decision-making to enhance adherence, fostering trust and communication. Patients reported trusting their therapists, who played a major role in instilling confidence in AD use. Patient barriers included: stigma, education gaps, device design flaws, costs, and memory limitations. Insights from the WAI-SR provided valuable information on PTR dynamics, potentially enhancing adherence strategies. The findings suggest that the quality of the PTR significantly influences AD use. They offer insights into therapists' strategies for enhancing adherence, patients' barriers, and the WAI-SR’s potential.
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 | 0.015 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".