A Systematic Review of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: A Clinical Practice Perspective
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
Occupational therapists working to a philosophy of client-centred practice will benefit from a reliable and well reviewed outcome measure to provide an evidence base. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to evaluate worldwide publications on the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) to determine its impact on clinical practice in occupational therapy. A literature search strategy was deployed which resulted in a review of 64 articles. A themed analysis approach was used to integrate the results into linked and recurring themes. The focus of the systematic review was to concentrate on issues affecting clinical practice and the following were selected as key factors for consideration: negative and positive issues arising from the use of the COPM; impact on practice for the therapist, client, process and clinical work; and change initiatives for the therapist, client, process and clinical practice. A profile of all articles, which identifies where these factors are indicated, is presented as a summary guide to assist the clinician. The findings of the review indicated that the greatest impact of using the COPM was within clinical practice. Change initiatives indicated the need for further research in different clinical areas, as well as the continual development and need for more training of occupational therapists in the use of COPM as an outcome measure.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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