Community Stroke Rehabilitation Teams and Social Deprivation: Challenges and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: Social deprivation is associated with worse functional recovery and social participation after stroke. Home-based, individualized rehabilitation provided by Community Stroke Rehabilitation Teams (CSRTs) improves these outcomes. This study aimed to show that CSRTs offered an effective specific rehabilitation for socially deprived patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted in real-care conditions. Social deprivation was assessed by the Evaluation de la Précarité et des Inégalités de santé dans les Centres d’Examens de Santé score. The outcome questionnaires included the Frenchay Activity Index (FAI) and the EuroQol-5Dimension. We compared these outcomes between deprived and non-deprived (ND) populations. Rehabilitation of the deprived population was assessed by comparing interventions across both groups. Results: We included 198 deprived patients and 140 ND patients. Deprived patients were more often women ( p = 0.027), more likely to live alone at home ( p = 0.01), and were referred later to a CSRT, despite having greater activity limitations at baseline ( p < 0.001). They also had a lower FAI at baseline (13.2 vs. 16.6; p = 0.007). Although their FAI improved over time (+2.4 ± 5.5; p < 0.001), the improvement was modest and insufficient to close the gap with the ND group (15.7 vs. 20.7; p < 0.001). Regarding program characteristics, the deprived population received input from a greater number of healthcare professionals (2.7 ± 1.2 vs 2.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.017) and more often from the intervention “Health professional relationship” (34.2% vs 15.6%; p = 0.005). Conclusion: These findings highlight the intersectionality of stroke-related challenges and the critical need to design post-stroke rehabilitation strategies that are more equitable and responsive to gender and social determinants of health.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".