Perspectives of stroke survivors and informal caregivers on home-based mental practice for upper limb recovery after stroke: a qualitative co-design study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this qualitative study, we explored the views of stroke survivors and informal caregivers regarding three types of mental practice for upper limb recovery: (1) action observation (AO); (2) motor imagery (MI); and (3) combined action observation and motor imagery (AO + MI). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted between December 2021 and October 2022 with 23 participants (13 caregivers and 10 stroke survivors).Thematic analysis generated three higher-order themes: (1) Mental practice: understanding and recent experience. Although comprehension of AO, MI, and AO + MI varied, participants could provide clear, jargon-free explanations of these methods. (2) Feasibility of home-based training. Caregivers often felt overburdened, confused, and unsupported in home-based care but considered mental practice education useful for rehabilitation. (3) User perspectives on a digital prototype (Webapp). Participants viewed the WebApp interface as overly text-heavy and recommended a more visually engaging design. This study provides new insights into stroke survivors’ and caregivers’ understanding and perceptions of mental practice and highlights the potential of co-designed digital resources to enhance engagement and support home-based rehabilitation. These findings will inform the iterative refinement of mental practice materials for future feasibility and acceptability testing in chronic stroke survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".