Identification and assessment of functional performance in mild cognitive impairment: A survey of occupational therapy practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Despite the amount of research evidence pointing to functional changes experienced by individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), we still do not understand how occupational therapists are currently addressing these concerns. Thus, we designed a national study to investigate Canadian occupational therapists practices with this clientele. METHODS: We conducted a Canada-wide online survey to investigate occupational therapists' practices with clients with potential MCI. Clinicians were prompted by a case vignette that described two clients: one vignette included cues associated with amnestic MCI (aMCI), the other non-amnestic MCI (naMCI). Specifically, clinicians were asked to identify potential concerns and to indicate the screening and assessment tools they would use in clinical practice. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-five participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The average clinician age was 38.6 (SD = 10.3), 92% were female and 71.2% worked full-time. Almost all clinicians identified a concern in both vignettes, with cognitive concerns being identified more frequently than functional concerns [i.e. Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) concerns]. In terms of assessment practices, 18 standardised IADL assessments and 10 standardised cognitive assessments have been reported. CONCLUSION: Encouragingly, almost all clinicians identified a concern. However, some are still missing the IADL cues. Moreover, the lack of consensus in terms of which assessment practices to employ indicates that clinicians might benefit from guidelines in this area of practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".