Orthoses as Enablers of Occupation: Client-Centred Splinting for Better Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthotic intervention (splinting) may have become an end unto itself in the minds of therapists and clients rather than the means to enable optimal occupational performance. Some policy makers and payers seem to hold the belief that orthoses/splints are mere technical aids and as such do not require professional skill and expertise. NARRATIVES: Three client stories demonstrate how iterative collaboration and follow-up help achieve client-identified objectives. DISCUSSION: Client input is an important component of the process and an orthosis must fit into the person's lifestyle, especially if required for long-term use. Six essential considerations when providing orthoses to meet occupational goals are emphasized: client-centredness, comfort, cosmesis, convenience, less is more and follow-up. Use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Model for intervention planning and as an outcome measure is demonstrated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Orthoses that are thoughtfully designed with client input and carefully constructed can make a difference in a person's life by relieving pain, providing protection and joint stabilization and enabling valued occupations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".