Sex Differences in Enrolment, Adherence, and Satisfaction in Canadian Stroke Telerehabilitation Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine sex-based differences in: (1) enrolment, adherence, and satisfaction in telerehabilitation programs for individuals with stroke in Canada; (2) adherence and satisfaction outcomes in exercise and self-management intervention subgroups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Telerehabilitation for community-dwelling individuals with stroke. PARTICIPANTS/MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Enrolment (n (%) men, women), adherence (# sessions completed/total # sessions), and program satisfaction (5-point Likert scale program satisfaction survey administered) were used from 3 telerehabilitation trials. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to determine sex differences in exercise-based (participants included in analyses: n=57 adherence; n=54 satisfaction total participants included in analyses) or self-management (n=87 adherence; n=77 satisfaction) programs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. RESULTS: Enrolment for men was more than 2-fold higher than that for woman across all studies (n=149 [67.4%] vs 72 [32.6%]). Adherence was similar between men and women with most participants completing 100% [interquartile range, 0] of sessions for the total sample (P=.13, Z=1.52), and for exercise (P=.16, Z=1.41) and self-management subgroups (P=.13, Z=1.52). Overall satisfaction with the telerehabilitation programs were similar between sexes for the total sample (P=.46, Z=0.75), and in exercise (P=.82, Z=0.23) and self-management (P=.49, Z=0.69) subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Enrolment among men outnumbered women more than 2-fold, despite the similar number of stroke events between sexes. There were no sex differences for adherence or satisfaction across programs or with different areas of intervention foci. Emphasis should be placed on promoting recruitment of women with stroke. We provided potential strategies based on observations in the current study.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".