The Tree Theme Method as an intervention in psychosocial occupational therapy: Client acceptability and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The Tree Theme Method (TTM) is an intervention in which the client paints trees representing certain periods in his/her life. The intervention comprises five sessions, using trees as a starting point to tell one's life story. This study, which is part of an implementation project, aimed to examine the therapeutic alliance and client satisfaction, in relation to perceptions of everyday occupations and health-related factors, with clients going through a TTM intervention. METHODS: Nine occupational therapists recruited 35 clients, at general outpatient mental health care units, for the TTM intervention. Self-rating instruments, targeting therapeutic alliance (HAq-II), different aspects of daily occupations (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Satisfaction with Daily Occupations), health-related factors (Sense of Coherence measure, Mastery Scale, Symptom Checklist-90-R) and client satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), were administrated before and after the intervention. RESULTS: A good initial therapeutic alliance, experienced by both therapists and clients, was correlated to increased changes regarding occupational performance and self-mastery. According to the therapists' ratings, a good initial therapeutic alliance was correlated to increased sense of coherence and a decreased level of psychiatric symptoms. The results showed positive significant changes in occupational performance and health-related factors. High ratings of the therapeutic alliance by the therapists were also related to high client satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The TTM seemed to function well in psychosocial occupational therapy, but there is a need for further implementation studies to deepen our understanding of the treatment process, comprising both technique and formation of the therapeutic alliance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".