MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419237849 · doi:10.1177/000841740907600s09

Client-centred home modifications improve daily activity performance of older adults

2009· article· en· W2419237849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan Stark, Amanda Landsbaum, Janice L. Palmer, Emily Somerville, John C. Morris, Amanda Harvey, Dorismae Hacker Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsActivities of daily livingOccupational therapyGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Remaining at home is a high priority for many older adults, but the capacity to "age in place" often is threatened by environmental barriers. PURPOSE: To describe a client-centred occupational therapy home modification intervention program and examine the impact of the intervention on daily activity performance over time. METHODS: Using a competence-environmental press framework, a client-centred home modification program for older adults was implemented. In this quasiexperimental, single group prospective study, participants'subjective ratings of daily activity performance were evaluated before and after the intervention (baseline/post/post). FINDINGS: After home modification, participants'perception of their daily activity performance at home improved significantly and was maintained 2 years post-modification. IMPLICATIONS: Home modification may benefit older adults attempting to age in place.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207