The effectiveness of a self-management occupational therapy intervention on activity performance in individuals with multiple sclerosis-related fatigue: a randomized-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose to evaluate the effectiveness of an individual self-management occupational therapy intervention program (SMOoTh) versus relaxation on the performance of and satisfaction with relevant daily activities in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. in a single-blind randomized-controlled trial, 31 patients with MS (SMOoTh: n=17, relaxation: n=14) were randomly allocated to three individual sessions focusing on pacing, prioritizing, ergonomics, and self-management (SMOoTh) or on stress management and relaxation (relaxation). Outcomes (blind assessor): Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (primary), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Checklist Individual Strength and Short-Form Health Measure. COPM improved in the SMOoTh and relaxation group after the intervention and 3 months later (COPM performance: F=13.1, P=0.001 and COPM satisfaction: F=10.4, P=0.001); nonsignificant group differences showed a trend in favor of SMOoTh. Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Checklist Individual Strength, and most of the Short-Form Health Measure subscales did not change. Clinically relevant changes in COPM performance scores were found in 71 and 27% of patients in the SMOoTh versus the relaxation group. Both interventions seem to be feasible approaches to improve performance of and satisfaction with relevant daily activities in people with MS, with a sustained effect after 3 months. Neither program altered change fatigue (impact) or quality of life. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".