Experiences with the COPM and client‐centred practice in adult neurorehabilitation in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of a client-centred approach and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) were investigated in a neurorehabilitation unit in Taiwan. Four Taiwanese occupational therapists were trained in the use of client-centred practice and the COPM before using them with 12 clients attending neurorehabilitation. The COPM and the Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNL) were administered before treatment and after one month of neurorehabilitation to investigate the sensitivity of the COPM in measuring change. Pre and post interviews were also conducted with the participating occupational therapists to ascertain their perceptions of the clinical utility of the COPM, and to determine their views about the client-centred approach. Matched t-tests showed significant increases in clients' self-ratings of performance and satisfaction on the COPM and in RNL scores between pre and post tests. The qualitative findings highlighted issues regard-ing the administration, scoring and identification of problems in the COPM and client-centred practice, such as clients' willingness to manage their own health care and empowerment to participate in intervention, as well as therapists' knowledge of and confidence with this new approach. Although this study was limited by small sample size and the use of only one hospital neurorehabilitation unit, it has shown the utility of the COPM as an outcome measure in this setting. Further research is warranted to investigate cultural influences on client-centred practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".