MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A systematic and critical review of the literature: The effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Home Assessment on a range of outcome measures

2005· article· en· W2018125063 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of South AustraliaMcMaster University
KeywordsOccupational therapyCritical appraisalSystematic reviewMedicineConsistency (knowledge bases)Grey literatureMEDLINEPsychologyPhysical therapyAlternative medicineComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.295
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it