Clinical Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Collaborative goal setting is an important part of the occupational therapy process in spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Little is known about the clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) with this population, although it has potential advantages over informal methods of goal setting commonly used in a spinal injury unit (SIU). The aim of this study was to investigate the goal setting process and clinical utility of the COPM from the perspective of occupational therapists within a SIU. Method: A focus group was conducted with six occupational therapists working in a SIU to explore their experiences and use of goal setting and the COPM. Inductive thematic analysis identified key themes from their comments. Findings: Focus group themes were the impact of client adjustment and other factors, organisational and administrative factors, therapist skill level and experience requirements, benefits of the COPM and incorporating the COPM into practice. Conclusion: Formal goal setting was a concept that was identified as a priority by the participants; however, there were organisational, client and therapist related factors that were considered as both barriers and facilitators to formal goal setting and the use of the COPM in this setting.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".