A national survey of occupational therapists' practices related to participation post-stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: First, to identify occupational therapists' stroke rehabilitation practices related to leisure and social aspects of participation and potential explanatory variables associated with these practices. Secondly, to identify occupational therapists' desired assessment and treatment practices related to participation. DESIGN: A Canada-wide telephone survey. SUBJECTS: A random sample of 480 occupational therapists providing stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: Two case studies were created: one representing a patient receiving inpatient stroke rehabilitation; the other receiving community-based rehabilitation. A standardized questionnaire was used to elicit information on: (i) clinician and environmental variables; (ii) management of the patient depicted; (iii) desired assessment and intervention use. RESULTS: 60.2% identified a problem relating to leisure or social aspects of participation, 23.1% would use an assessment and 36.5% would offer an intervention focusing on leisure or social participation. Desired assessment use was low (1%), as was desired intervention use (15.2%). Regression analyses using numerous potential explanatory variables explained little regarding clinician practices. CONCLUSION: Less than half of the occupational therapists focused interventions on leisure and social aspects of participation, suggesting a gap between what could be done to enhance successful community reintegration post-stroke and what is currently done.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".