A client‐centred, occupation‐based occupational therapy programme for adults with psychiatric diagnoses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a client-centred, occupation-based occupational therapy programme for individuals with psychiatric diagnoses. The study took place in a college campus. A pre-test/post-test design was used. There were 38 participants which included college students and community members who desired to attend college, work and/or address life skill goals. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used as a pre- and post-test measure. Goals were based on problems identified in the COPM, reflected academic, vocational, life skill, and leisure goals, and were systematically addressed weekly through activities developed by the participant and a graduate occupational therapy student who acted as a mentor. The Participant Overall Satisfaction Scale was completed by each participant. A case study was used to describe the programme in more depth. The results support that the client-centred, occupation-based occupational therapy programme increased client scores on satisfaction and performance of occupational performance problems identified on the COPM. Further research is recommended to explore how client-centred occupational therapy programmes can be effective in improving academic, vocational and life skill goals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".