Home-Based Occupational Therapy: Stroke Patients' Satisfaction with Occupational Performance and Service Provision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated a short post-discharge home-based occupational therapy service for stroke patients, including an assessment of the patients' satisfaction with occupational performance and service provision. A single-site, blind randomised controlled trial was conducted. One hundred and thirty-eight patients were randomly allocated to either a conventional outpatient follow-up or conventional services plus 6 weeks of home-based occupational therapy. The data were collected before discharge and at 7 weeks and 6 months after discharge using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the Dartmouth COOP Charts, the London Handicap Scale and a patient satisfaction questionnaire. At 7 weeks the intervention group reported significantly greater changes in performance and satisfaction on the COPM, better emotional scores (Dartmouth COOP Charts) and improved work and leisure activity scores (London Handicap Scale). No other differences in subjective health status were described. By 6 months, the intervention group was more satisfied with several aspects of service provision but no other differences in subjective health experience were reported. A 6-week post-discharge home-based occupational therapy service can improve patients' perceptions of their occupational performance and satisfaction with services but may not have a long-term effect on subjective health outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".