Navigating the life stage after stroke: From Life 2.0 to stroke prevention models of care — A qualitative exploration of younger and middle-aged adult stroke patients' experiences and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Global stroke incidence has been rising among adults 65 years of age or younger. A dearth of research exists exploring and understanding younger and middle-aged adults’ lifestyle-related knowledge and habits along with associated facilitators and/or barriers with the adoption, maintenance, and support needs for development of new brain health interventions, which this study sought to address. Methods A qualitative study was conducted, followed by virtual, semi-structured focus groups. Data collection and analysis were performed using Goffman's dramaturgical theory to guide the inductive thematic data analysis. Results A total of 12 participants comprised the sample. Four themes emerged: 1) Front stage: Life 2.0 , 2) Back stage: Unseen and invisible challenges , 3) Scripts and audience reaction: Dualism of social influence ; and 4) Setting: Standard of care, but to who’s standard? Conclusion Findings contributed to a deeper understanding of factors influencing the adoption of healthy habits and approaches to reconceptualize and re-design brain health interventions that meet the needs, preferences, and priorities of this population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".