Measuring Clinical Effectiveness in Mental Health: is the Canadian Occupational Performance an appropriate Measure?
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
Assessing the impact of occupational therapy with mental health clients within community settings has received relatively little attention in the research literature. Where such studies have been undertaken, there has been inconsistency in the types of instrument used and considerable variation in the sample sizes. In this study, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used to detect what changes, if any, had occurred on the completion of an occupational therapy programme. This instrument seeks to assist clients in the identification of the problems with occupational performance that cause them most concern. Sixty clients, who were in receipt of occupational therapy, participated in a 4-year study. Data were collected using the COPM at the commencement of their interventions and again on completion of the programme. The findings suggest that this was an appropriate instrument for detecting significant changes in this client group on completion of their occupational therapy. The implications of these findings are discussed, with a view to improving the efficacy of interventions by occupational therapists in mental health care in the future.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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