Adapting a facilitated, video-based, group, exercise program to improve mobility and physical activity of people post-stroke outside of therapy time in the inpatient stroke rehabilitation setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke rehabilitation inpatients spend 75-95% of their time sedentary, partly due to mobility limitations. This qualitative study explored how to adapt a facilitated, video-based, group exercise program for delivery during non-therapy time in the inpatient stroke rehabilitation setting and barriers and facilitators to implementation in a university-affiliated rehabilitation hospital. Twenty-five participants, including 12 people post-stroke, 3 caregivers, and 10 stroke team members, completed interviews or focus groups. Directed content analysis revealed key adaptations, including reducing the difficulty of select exercises, scheduling 3 optional weekly sessions, having one rehabilitation therapist and one volunteer facilitate the program in the dining room to a group of six, and safety check-ins by a rehabilitation professional. Barriers included concerns about fatigue/injury and inadequate familiarity or confidence to perform exercises. Facilitators included familiarity/confidence with performing exercises, physical program benefits, and supervision by facilitators and rehabilitation professionals. Findings can inform development of the program and implementation strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".