Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of an Occupational Time-Use Intervention for People With Serious Mental Illness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the efficacy and clinical utility of a new occupational time-use intervention, Action Over Inertia, designed to improve occupational balance and engagement among community-dwelling people with serious mental illness. METHOD: Using a randomized controlled design, we assigned 24 participants to an intervention group or standard care group. Participants were community-dwelling people with serious mental illness receiving assertive community treatment services. Data on time use, occupational balance, and engagement were collected and compared at baseline and 12-wk posttest. RESULTS: Eighteen participants completed the pilot study. Treatment group participants increased their occupational balance by spending an average of 47 min more per day in activity than the control group (p = .05). Differences in occupational engagement were not shown, but evidence of clinical utility was found. CONCLUSION: This pilot study of Action Over Inertia has shown evidence of efficacy and clinical utility.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it