A patient-prioritized ability assessment in haemophilia: the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment of musculoskeletal function in individuals with haemophilia has been attempted with clinimetric instruments, which use predetermined domains for assessing the same. This study introduces the application of an instrument, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), which is an open-ended questionnaire that allows patients to prioritize their needs and rate their performance in different tasks of daily living as well as their satisfaction in performing them. To study the utility of COPM in evaluating the musculoskeletal functional status of patients with haemophilia and to assess its effectiveness in planning individualized management plans for them. COPM was administered to 67 individuals with haemophilia aged 10-55 years and the data were compared with functional deficits identified through FISH (Functional Independence Score for Haemophilia). A total of 31 performance difficulties in the areas of self-care (62%), productivity (21%) and leisure (17%) were identified by COPM. All eight domains of FISH were identified in COPM as problems in self-care. In addition to these, COPM identified problems in the areas of productivity and leisure. In 78% of the responses on COPM, there was concordance between the performance and satisfaction scores. However, there was discordance between the two in the remaining 22% of responses. COPM is a useful tool for assessment of musculoskeletal dysfunction in haemophilia. It provides a greater insight into the needs of each patient and helps in planning individualized intervention 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".