Usefulness of the ManageMed Screen (MMS) and the Screening for Self-Medication Safety Post Stroke (S5) for Assessing Medication Management Capacity for Clients Post-Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapists need to efficiently and accurately screen a client’s medication management capacity, especially for clients post-stroke. Most therapists are not aware of, nor do they utilize specific assessments for, medication management capacity. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the results of the ManageMed Screen (MMS), the Screening for Self-Medication Safety Post Stroke (S5), and the Montreal Assessment of Cognition (MoCA) on a population of rehabilitation clients post-stroke to determine the usefulness of the medication assessment tools in clinical practice. These screens were designed for use in occupational therapy practice among other healthcare professions: the MMS was validated for the general adult population, the S5 for clients post-stroke, and the MoCA is a cognitive screen used with adult clients with a variety of diagnoses including stroke. The MoCA was used to explore the potential relationship between cognition and medication management capacity. Study participants included five clients post-stroke and three occupational therapists. Clients were screened by the occupational therapists with the MMS, S5, and MoCA, and clinicians also participated in a focus group to assess their perceived usefulness of the screens. Results demonstrated that the MMS score compared to the S5 score was not statistically significant (r=.671, p=.215). There is no established consistency between the MoCA and MMS given these five clients. The MMS score was correlated to the MoCA score and was not found to be significant at a value of .205 with p=.741. The S5 score was also correlated to the MoCA score using SPSS and was found to have a non-significant value of -.287 and p=.640. Additionally, through a focus group, clinicians deemed both the MMS and S5 as useful, but felt the MMS was a more useful screen for their clinical practice with regard to efficient and practical use with clients post-stroke in a rehabilitation setting.
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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".