Effectiveness of Client-Centered Occupational Therapy in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of client-centered occupational therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 40 patients (2 males, 38 females; range 39 to 60 years) with RA. Patients were divided into two groups as intervention group (n=20) and control group (n=20) by random sampling method. Each group was given 10 sessions of physical therapy program. In addition, the intervention group received client-centered occupational therapy. Patients were evaluated with Turkish versions of Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Health Assessment Questionnaire, The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2, RA Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement. RESULTS: Pain, activity limitation, and participation restriction scores decreased significantly more in the intervention group compared to the control group. Also, quality of life increased significantly in the intervention group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that occupational therapy intervention reduces activity limitation and participation restrictions in patients with RA. Therefore, such interventions may be generalized for this patient group.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".