Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study was conducted to provide occupational performance evaluated by stroke patients themselves as an intervention according to the periods of its outbreak and examine the effects of it on their activities of daily living and life quality by using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Method: The subjects of this research were divided into nine persons for the experimental group receiving the client-centered occupational therapy intervention and another nine for the control group getting the conventional occupational therapy intervention. And the intervention was performed for 30 minutes, three times a week, for total eight weeks. The level of activities of daily living was evaluated by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and life quality was tested by using SS-QOL. Results: First, about the difference of change in the FIM points of the two groups, there was statistically significant difference in Mauchly’s sphericity verification (p<.05). Second, about the difference of change in the SS-QOL points of the two groups, there was statistically significant difference in Mauchly’s sphericity verification (p<.05). Third, regarding the coefficient of difference in the change of FIM and SS-QOL points according to the two groups, there existed statistically significant correlation in all the evaluations of before, in the middle of, and after the FIM points and also before, in the middle of, and after the SS-QOL points (p<.05). Conclusion: With the findings of this research, we can see that the client-centered occupational therapy training group shows more improved activities of daily living and life quality than the conventional occupational therapy training group. Therefore, it is expected that the client-centered occupational therapy training will be applied usefully to clinical situations as an intervention to improve stroke patients’ activities of daily living as well as life quality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".