MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132954101

Increasing Understanding of Physiotherapists’ Approaches to Implementing Aerobic Exercise Testing during In-patient Stroke Rehabilitation in Canada

2024· dissertation· W7132954101 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean Michelle Legasto-Mulvale

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)RehabilitationStroke recoveryProtocol (science)Aerobic exerciseTest (biology)Clinical Practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke clinical practice guidelines recommend aerobic exercise (AEx) testing to determine an intensity for AEx training that can safely improve cardiovascular fitness for individuals post-stroke. However, the variety of approaches to performing AEx testing and competing priorities during in-patient stroke rehabilitation can make it challenging for physiotherapists (PTs) toimplement AEx testing with individuals undergoing in-patient stroke rehabilitation. This thesis addresses the disconnect between guidelines and clinical practice with 3 studies aimed at 1)describing submaximal AEx testing protocols that are safe for people with subacute stroke, 2)describing current AEx testing practices and the barriers and facilitators to AEx testing faced by PTs working in in-patient stroke rehabilitation, and 3) exploring the experiences of PTs, who routinely perform submaximal AEx testing, with the clinical implementation of submaximal AEx testing with individuals undergoing stroke rehabilitation. Study 1, a scoping review, identified several submaximal AEx testing protocols, with conservative test termination criteria and appropriate monitoring, that were safely implemented with people with subacute stroke, including those with comorbidity. Study 2, a web-based survey, found that less than half of PTs working in in-patient stroke rehabilitation settings in Canada perform AEx testing with patients post-stroke due to a range of practitioner- and organizational-level barriers. Lastly, study 3, a qualitative descriptive study incorporating a realist approach, explored how submaximal AEx testing, using a 6MWT protocol or an incremental protocol, can be a complex process that requires PTs to have the appropriate knowledge, skills, supports, and resources to perform regularly. Overall, thesis findings increase understanding of how PTs can implement submaximal AEx testing during in-patient stroke rehabilitation, including what educational and clinical resources and supports they need to do so. Future research can build upon these findings to develop knowledge translation products and interventions that will facilitate PTs’ submaximal AEx testing practices with people undergoing in-patient stroke rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→