Occupational therapists use of cognitive interventions for clients with Alzheimer's disease
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
The aim of this study was to establish a profile of occupational therapy practice for cognitive interventions for clients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in an urban setting. Seventy-four occupational therapists working with older adults with AD in diverse settings in the city of Montreal were randomly selected and were sent a self-administered questionnaire by mail. Sixty-five (87.8%) therapists responded. Findings indicated that 52.3% of occupational therapists are performing cognitive interventions with persons with AD. Of those, 82.4% report using cognitive rehabilitation, 61.8% using cognitive stimulation and 50.0% using cognitive training. Intervention use varied across settings and differed according to severity of AD. The sessions are usually provided individually and often include the client's caregiver. Generalizability of the results is limited to urban areas, and possible differences in service provision should be taken into consideration. Further research is needed to measure the effectiveness of these interventions provided by occupational therapists and to compare occupational therapy practices in urban and rural areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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