A systematic and critical review of the literature: The effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Home Assessment on a range of outcome measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To identify, collate and assess the findings of the available literature regarding discharge planning involving occupational therapy home assessments and the identified outcome measures. A systematic critical review of 31 studies of home assessment was completed. Methods: A comprehensive computer‐aided search was conducted of 10 databases. Any searches identifying literature on home assessment and occupational therapy were retained. The McMaster critical appraisal tools were used to determine methodological quality, the McMaster (qualitative and quantitative). Summaries were made of the key features of each study to enable comparison. Results: Two systematic reviews, eight randomised controlled trials, 16 descriptive and five anecdotal studies were found. Twelve papers relating directly to occupational therapy were identified. A wide variety of outcome measures were identified, covering seven major categories of: personnel present, cost, frequency and when a home assessment was completed, readmission to hospital, stakeholder perspective and use of standardised assessments. There was minimal consistency in measuring outcomes. The McMaster critical review format was used to evaluate each paper and denote a score out of 15 for quantitative and 27 for qualitative papers. These forms are written in basic terms that can be understood by researchers as well as clinicians and students. Conclusion: Low numbers of high level (levels 1, 2) or high quality publications directly relevant to the effectiveness of occupational therapy home assessment and discharge planning were identified. It is apparent from the paucity of quality and quantity of studies identified in this current review that considerably more high‐quality research is required prior to definitive recommendations being made regarding the use of occupational therapy home assessments in discharge planning.
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 | 0.165 | 0.422 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| 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".