MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115573498 · doi:10.1016/j.qrmh.2025.100034

Younger adult women who had a stroke or at high stroke risk: Exploration of their experiences and needs

2025· article· en· W7115573498 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalMcGill University Health CentrePublic Health Ontario
FundersTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPsychosocialStroke (engine)Psychological interventionMotivational interviewingInterviewFocus groupSocial supportHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Worldwide, women, particularly younger and middle-aged (≤65 years), are disproportionately affected by stroke. Although the adoption of healthy lifestyle habits is integral for stroke risk factor modification, little is known about younger adult women who had a stroke or are at high risk of stroke-their lifestyle-related knowledge, behaviors, associated and influencing facilitators, and barriers to support brain health, which this study aimed to address. Methods: A qualitative interpretivist design was employed that was part of a larger quality improvement mixed-methods study. Data was collected through virtual, semi-structured focus groups. Inductive thematic analysis was performed and analyzed using the intersectionality framework. Results: A total of 11 women comprised the study sample who were of high stroke risk or had a stroke (mean age 53 years, 54.5 % stroke). A total of six themes emerged from the analysis: (1) lifestyle habits supporting holistic post-stroke recovery, (2) parenting-not being the same mother as before, (3) professional expectations-having to leave career behind and pressures to return, (4) societal expectations of women and permission to self-care, (5) psychological safety and comfort from women-centered interventions, and (6) experience in the healthcare system-not feeling seen, heard, or considered as a woman. Conclusions: , through the incorporation of case management and psychosocial support in the current model of stroke care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Research in Medicine & HealthcareSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207