Exploring the Evidence for Occupational Therapists' Interventions with Clients with Lateral Epicondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateral epicondylitis is known to be a major problem in work absenteeism and permanent partial disability. Although occupational therapists are often asked to treat clients with this disorder, its management remains controversial since there is insufficient research evidence to favour any particular intervention. This study gathered information on the current interventions used by occupational therapists with clients with lateral epicondylitis according to three phases: acute, subacute and chronic. A self-administered questionnaire was sent to a convenience sample of 219 occupational therapists working in the province of Québec in Canada. After two reminders, a participation rate of 81% was obtained. Over 20 interventions were identified and sorted into five categories: education, activities/exercises, assistive devices, environment and pain management modalities. Overall, education about risk factors was the most frequently used intervention by occupational therapists in all phases. Activities/exercises formed the second most frequently used intervention group, but were more preferred in the subacute and chronic phases. Although many interventions are currently used in health care facilities, few studies on their effectiveness have been conducted. This study explored the gap between research and practice by surveying clinicians on their management of clients with lateral epicondylitis, allowing the targeting of areas considered useful for future studies in occupational therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".