A Study to Find out the Prevalence and Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Intervention for Pain and Activity Performance in Mobile Users with Risk of Repetitive Strain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To find the prevalence of pain and activity restriction among mobile users with risk of Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI). To study the effectiveness of Occupational Therapy(OT) intervention for improving activity performance in mobile users with RSI. Methodology: 3 questionnaires were made and validated. RSI Screening Questionnaire was given to 100 participants to find out the prevalence. Among which 64 of them were selected based on inclusion criteria. Pretest was taken using McGill Pain Questionnaire, Activity Restriction Questionnaire and Awareness Questionnaire. Interventions such as health education, strengthening activities and pamphlets were given for three 30 min session / week.After a period of 3 weeks posttest was taken using the same questionnaire and results were analyzed. Results: Using SPSS-15, Descriptive analysis and Paired‘t’ test was used to analyze the data. 64% of them had symptom of pain and limitation it their activity performance. There was a significant difference between pre and post test score in pain and activity restriction and awareness at p<0.05 level. Conclusion: There was a significant reduction
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".