<i>‘There's a real plan here, and I am responsible for that plan’:</i>participant experiences with a novel cognitive-based treatment approach for adults living with chronic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was part of a larger mixed methods project aimed at adapting the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) treatment approach, originally designed for children with performance problems, for use with adults with stroke. In CO-OP, the client focuses on learning strategies and skills, rather than on remediating impairments. Therapists use guided discovery to teach cognitive strategy use. The purpose of this study was to explore participants' experiences with the approach. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with five participants. Transcriptions were coded by two members of the research team. Data analysis was conducted in two distinct phases: Directed content analysis was conducted to apply codes to predetermined categories; Thematic analysis was conducted to allow themes grounded in the data to emerge. RESULTS: Participants reported learning and transferring the strategies taught, and made suggestions for modifications to the approach, such as increasing the number of sessions. One theme emerged, Balancing the need for autonomy with the need for support. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest the cognitive strategies were well learned and effectively used. CO-OP was able to provide participants with increased decision-making autonomy, but may require modifications to better support their transition to higher levels of independence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".