Home and Community Occupational Therapy for Children and Youth: A before and after Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been an increased focus on home care service provision in recent years, yet there are few data available about the provision of home and community occupational therapy for children and youth. PURPOSE: To evaluate key elements of a service provision model for home care occupational therapy in terms of occupational performance outcomes, perception of care and cost. METHODS: Eleven centres in Ontario and Quebec recruited 167 children and youth up to 18 years of age to a before and after study of occupational therapy services in the home and community. Occupational performance, quality of life and costs were measured at baseline and study end. Perception of care was measured at study completion. RESULTS: A statistically and clinically significant improvement in occupational performance was demonstrated (p < 0.001). The clients' families gave high ratings to the process of care provided by the occupational therapists. These data did not demonstrate a clear relationship between amount of service, cost and occupational performance outcome. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Children receiving home and community occupational therapy services change in their occupational performance abilities. These changes are not directly related to the amount or focus of the occupational therapy services.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".