Cognitive rehabilitation: a pilot survey of therapeutic modalities used by Canadian occupational therapists with survivors of traumatic brain injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot study used survey methodology to gather initial information from Canadian occupational therapists on 1) the delivery of cognitive rehabilitation services for survivors of traumatic brain injury and 2) the therapeutic approaches and modalities used currently to manage residual cognitive impairments. A questionnaire was developed, field-tested and mailed to 27 sample sites across Canada, selected non-randomly. Twenty returned questionnaires (74%) were included in the data pool. The findings revealed that a wide range of cognitive impairments were seen very often, with impairments in memory being most common. Respondents used both a cognitive remediation and compensatory approach and a combination of therapeutic modalities to address impairments of orientation, attention, and memory. There was an interesting and overlapping range of specific modalities identified. Inpatient and outpatient services were offered to survivors, primarily within the first year post-injury. These occupational therapists used various resources to develop expertise in cognitive rehabilitation. Possible implications of the pilot study findings for Canadian occupational therapists are high-lighted and discussed.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".