Client Adherence to Discharge Recommendations from an Occupational Therapy Teaching Clinic Based on Activity Type: Occupation-based, Purposeful, or Preparatory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown full adherence to occupational therapy home program recommendations varies between 40 and 70%. Considering many clients have chronic conditions and are not completely recovered at discharge, this rate of adherence is far less than ideal and has been associated with poor overall health outcomes. Previous research has also suggested that people respond better to activities that have a goal-embedded component than they do to traditional or rote exercise. The current study examined client adherence based on the type of discharge recommendation given to adult clients at an on-campus clinic. Recommendations were categorized into those which were goal-embedded: occupation-based and purposeful and those which did not have a goal-embedded component: preparatory. Adherence rates to occupation-based recommendations had a statistically significant higher adherence than did those that were preparatory. No statistically significant differences were found between preparatory and purposeful or purposeful and occupation-based recommendations. Additionally, facilitators and barriers were examined and discussed, including the appropriateness, feasibility, and likability of a discharge recommendation and how they affect adherence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".