MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130186502 · doi:10.5014/ajot.57.5.499

Outcomes in Hand Rehabilitation Using Occupational Therapy Services

2003· article· en· W2130186502 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDashOccupational therapyMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationActivities of daily livingIntervention (counseling)Outpatient clinicPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure functional outcomes after outpatient occupational therapy for clients who had upper-extremity injury and surgery or both. METHODS: A sample of 33 clients referred to occupational therapy outpatient intervention was recruited from five clinics in Ohio. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used to guide the occupational therapy sessions and to measure outcomes. The Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) were also administered to the clients pre and post 6 to 8 weeks of hand rehabilitation services. Two to three months after discharge, the clients responded by the telephone to the Community Integration Questionnaire. RESULTS: The clients received a mean of 13 hours of outpatient occupational therapy services and received no other rehabilitation service. Functional performance gains following 6 to 8 weeks of services were significant (COPM; t(32) = -11.5, p < .001; t(32) = -11.31, p < .001; DASH; t(32) = 9.22, p < .001; t(32) = -9.02, p < .001). Effect sizes on the COPM and DASH ranged between 1.43 and 2.52. Progress in the clients' goals was moderately correlated to progress in functional measures. CONCLUSION: Clients with upper-extremity injury or surgery made strong, positive gains in functional measures following client-centered occupational therapy services. The COPM was the most sensitive to client change, followed by the DASH, and then the SF-36.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it