Results from a cognitive group rehabilitation programme from an occupational performance perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used for treatment planning and to evaluate the effect of a cognitive group rehabilitation programme. The aim was to identify occupational performance problems defined as important and to analyse the outcome, and to link those problems to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core set for traumatic brain injury and stroke. Method A retrospective design was used, including an analysis of COPM data recorded before and two months after the programme. COPM data from 124 clients were linked to the ICF core sets. Results A clinically important difference of ≥2 COPM scores was reached in 32% of the clients for occupational performance and in 47% for satisfaction with occupational performance. A majority of the problems identified (62%) were classified within the activities and participation component in the ICF, and 38% in body functions. All occupational performance problems could be linked to the ICF; just one of the 36 categories (caring for household objects) was not found in any of the ICF core sets. Conclusion By linking the COPM data to the core sets, occupational therapists can be confident in addressing the typical problems of the group of clients identified.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".