Who’s in the driver seat?: raising the voices of younger women stroke survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Driving restriction has far reaching negative impacts for people who have experienced a stroke. However, current understandings of driving restriction and community mobility after stroke are informed by experiences and perspectives of older men. Younger women (aged 55 years and younger) are facing increased risks for stroke and have unique needs related to life stage and socio-cultural gender roles. Despite these unique risks and needs, women are underrepresented in stroke and driving research, and health organizations are calling for more representation of women in cardiovascular research. OBJECTIVES: To understand the experiences and perspectives of younger women related to driving restriction and their subsequent participation in valued activities and roles after a stroke. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive interview study with eight younger women (aged 55 years and younger) who had experienced a stroke. We used reflexive thematic analysis to identify themes in the data. RESULTS: Driving restriction after stroke among younger women is a significant disruption as driving is instrumental in enabling participation in valued activities, social interaction, and supportive roles. Women experienced significant psychological pain from driving restriction, compounded by the sudden and unexpected onset at their age. The women sought out social support, advocated for driver policy changes, and enacted agency to navigate driving restriction through the pursuit of self-determination and adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: Women have unique needs related to driving after stroke. More research is needed to develop richer understandings of this underrepresented group in stroke and driving research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".