The Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Supervised Usage of Adaptive Devices on Functional Outcomes and Independence after Total Hip Replacement in Iranian Elderly: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess the effect of an occupational therapy protocol of teaching the usage of adaptive devices to older individuals in Iran who have had a total hip replacement as compared with conventional occupational therapy on functional outcomes and independence. Forty individuals diagnosed with osteoarthritis and a total hip replacement aged >60 years were randomly allocated to either control group (n = 20) or experimental (n = 20) group. Pain, disability, independence and hip muscle strength were assessed with visual analogue scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis and Barthel Index and dynamometer, 2 days before and 6 weeks after the hip operation. Both groups received conventional occupational therapy, but the experimental group was additionally supervised on the use of adaptive devices. Correct use of the devices was instructed during the training session. Both groups significantly improved on all variables post-operatively. However, the experimental group showed significantly more improvement in all dependent variables post-operatively. No data were available on the use of the devices by the control group patients. Supervision of the utilization of the adaptive devices during regular home visits by the occupational therapist is recommended. Further research is needed to clarify which aspects of this supervision were most beneficial for the patients. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".