Proving the Effectiveness of Community Occupational Therapy in the Equipment and Adaptation Setting Using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Community Occupational Therapy Service (Equipment and Adaptations) at Worcestershire Health and Care National Health Service Trust, Redditch and Bromsgrove Locality identified the need to find an outcome measure that would determine its effectiveness. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was chosen as a client-centred, reliable, and validated outcome measure that was integrated within existing paperwork. The process followed is outlined in this practice analysis. The service completed 1,869 Canadian Occupational Performance Measure scores, which showed a statistically significant increase in client ratings of performance and satisfaction in 90% of clients, illustrating the effectiveness of the service. The aim of this practice analysis is to explain the process that this service followed to integrate the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure into practice and, thus, share the benefit of using it as an outcome measure with colleagues who work in a similar setting. The authors highlight the importance of continuing with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and look to develop its use further.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".