Efficacy of Occupational Therapy Task‐oriented Approach in Upper Extremity Post‐stroke Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need for more effective rehabilitation methods for individuals post-stroke. Occupational Therapy Task-Oriented (TO) approach has not been evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate functional and impairment efficacies of TO approach on the more-affected Upper Extremity (UE) of persons post-stroke. A randomized single-blinded cross-over trial recruited 20 participants post-stroke (mean chronicity = 62 months) who demonstrated at least 10° active more-affected shoulder flexion and abduction and elbow flexion-extension. Participants were randomized into immediate (n = 10) and delayed intervention (n = 10) groups. Immediate group had 6 weeks of 3 hr/week TO intervention followed by 6 weeks of no-intervention control. Delayed intervention group underwent the reversed order. Functional measures included Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Motor Activity Log (MAL), and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT). Impairment measures included UE Active Range of Motion (AROM) and handheld dynamometry strength. Measurements were obtained at baseline, cross over, and end of the study. TO intervention showed statistically higher functional change scores. COPM performance and satisfaction scores were 2.83 and 3.46 units greater respectively (p < .001), MAL amount of use and quality of use scores were 1.1 and 0.87 units greater, respectively (p < .001), WMFT time was 8.35 seconds faster (p = .009). TO impairment outcomes were not significantly larger than control ones. TO approach appears to be an effective UE post-stroke rehabilitation approach inducing clinically meaningful functional improvements. More studies are needed with larger samples and specific stroke chronicity and severity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".