Caregivers' preparedness for managing transition to the community of persons with cognitive impairment post-stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregiversu2019 preparedness for managing transition to the community of persons with cognitive impairment post-strokeIntroduction: Cognitive disorders are common in individuals with stroke and may represent major issues for caregivers who daily support them during transition to community. Caregivers' preparedness for managing this transition is critical. Objectives: To explore caregiversu2019 perceived needs during and after transition to community of their family member with cognitive impairment; and, to compare their needs with existing evidence-based recommendations for supporting caregivers and managing transitions of care. Methodology: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews with 10 caregivers of persons with cognitive impairment. The interview guide was developed based on a literature review and pilot results with two caregivers. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the Framework Approach (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). Caregiversu2019 needs were compared with recommendations for stroke services identified through a rapid document review (e.g., Canadian Stroke Best Practices Recommendations, 2015; Quebec Government, 2017). Results: Caregiversu2019 perceived needs are consistent with recommendations highlighting the importance of a partnership to enable informed decision-making and promote skills development. Ensuring adequate understanding of the daily repercussions of cognitive impairment and evaluating their capacity for managing this transition is necessary. Findings suggest that some of their needs are partially met, especially for individualized education during inpatient rehabilitation and for follow up by healthcare professionals after community reintegration, including access to community services. These needs seem even stronger for caregivers of persons who have complex impairments or require constant supervision. Conclusion: This study must guide some recommendations to ensure adequate preparation and support of caregivers during transition to community of persons with cognitive impairment post-stroke.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".