Evaluation of an Agency-Based Occupational Therapy Intervention to Facilitate Aging in Place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The United States faces a growing population of older adults and accompanying functional disabilities, coupled with constrained public resources and diminishing informal supports. A variety of interventions that aim to improve client outcomes have been studied, but to date, there is limited translational research that examines the efficacy of moving such interventions from clinical trials to agency settings. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate a restorative occupational therapy intervention relative to "usual care" among community-dwelling older adults. The intervention included a detailed assessment from a person-environment perspective and provision of adaptive equipment and home modifications where appropriate. The intervention (n = 31) and control groups (n = 29) were evaluated at 3 months and assessed for changes in functional status, home safety, falls, health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EQ5D), depression, social support, and fear of falling; a 4 subgroup analysis also examined outcomes by waiting list status. An informal economic evaluation compared the intervention to usual care. RESULTS: Findings indicated improvements in home safety (p < .0005, b = -15.87), HRQoL (p = .03, b = 0.08), and fear of falling (p < .05, b = 2.22). Findings did not show improvement in functional status or reduction in actual falls. The intervention resulted in a 39% reduction in recommended hours of personal care, which if implemented, could result in significant cost savings. IMPLICATIONS: The study adds to the growing literature of occupational therapy interventions for older adults, and the findings support the concept that restorative approaches can be successfully implemented in public agencies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".