Agency and Engagement: Older Adults' Experiences of Participation in Occupation during Home-Based Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation is considered the main goal of rehabilitation and occupational therapy intervention. This study focuses on older adults'participation in occupations in daily life when receiving home-based rehabilitation. PURPOSE: To explore how older adults with disabilities participate in daily life subsequent to hospitalization. METHODS: A prospective case-orientated design was used, with repeated interviews with three older adults and a constant comparative method of analysis. FINDINGS: Two main categories emerged as the participants' experience of participation: "Continuing to be an agent in daily life"captured the participants' decision making, choosing, and acting in daily life. "Life itself is the agent" identified how the participants, despite their strong wishes to be agents, also could let their participation be directed by their engagement in ongoing daily life. IMPLICATIONS: The findings identified participation as a dynamic engagement ranging from individual agency, including decision-making, choosing, and acting in daily life, to letting life itself be the agent. The emphasis on agency in the participants' experiences challenges rehabilitation professionals to find further means of facilitating the clients' possibilities of being agents in their daily lives.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".