MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531351742 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2016.014688

Description of and Preliminary Findings for Occupational Connections, an Intervention for Inpatient Psychiatry Settings

2016· article· en· W2531351742 on OpenAlexaff
Lena Lipskaya‐Velikovsky, Moshe Kotler, Terry Krupa

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Occupational therapyMental healthPsychologyEveryday lifeMedicinePsychiatryGerontologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with mental health conditions (MHCs) frequently experience participation and functional restrictions. Today, hospitals still serve a significant number of people with MHCs. However, there is little evidence for occupation-oriented interventions to support participation, health, and well-being in these hospital settings. This article describes a newly developed, short-term, structured intervention for the inpatient setting, Occupational Connections (OC), that focuses on promoting everyday functions and participation in daily life and presents preliminary findings for its effectiveness. Ten people with schizophrenia participated in the program during their stay in acute open inpatient units and completed evaluations both pre- and postintervention. Statistics for a small-sample study design were applied to investigate OC's impact. The results showed OC's contribution to participation dimensions, functional capacity, cognitive functioning, and reduction in schizophrenia symptoms. On the basis of this pilot study's results, extended research is now being conducted to strengthen the evidence for OC's effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207