MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055932277 · doi:10.1177/000841740206900504

Unawareness and/or Denial of Disability: Implications for Occupational Therapy Intervention

2002· article· en· W2055932277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noomi Katz, Jennifer Fleming, Nava Keren, Sue Lightbody, Adina Maeir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsDenialIntervention (counseling)RehabilitationPsychologyOccupational therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupational therapy focus on client-centred, occupational performance intervention may become complicated by the phenomena of self-awareness. The problem of awareness deficits in clients with neurological disorders may be attributed to neurological impairment of self-awareness and/or psychological denial of disability. These phenomena present themselves more commonly in combination than dichotomously and have implications for treatment outcomes. Individuals with impaired self-awareness or denial face difficulties with motivation and participation in therapy, and the adoption of compensatory strategies, which ultimately impacts on rehabilitation outcome. The extent of unawareness versus denial can be assessed by observation of a client's behavior and this information can be very useful in directing the treatment approach. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to discuss the phenomenon of unawareness and/or denial of disability and its importance to successful rehabilitation outcomes, current thinking and research conducted in different countries. Also, detailed case examples of three clients representing three major populations of traumatic brain injury, stroke and schizophrenia who may exhibit unawareness and/or denial of disability will be presented, including intervention strategies for both phenomena.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.436
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.043 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207