Effectiveness of an occupational therapy program after AECOPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Occupational therapy can improve occupational outcomes in adults with chronic diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an occupational therapy intervention after discharge from hospital due to an acute exacerbation (AE) of COPD Methods: Randomized controlled trial. Severe AECOPD patients were included in this study. Patients were asked to identify the activities that were difficult to perform with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The intervention consisted on three sessions of individualized treatment where the occupational therapist focused the treatment in the identified problems. Patients were assessed at discharge from hospital and at one month of discharge. Additionally to COPM, London Chest Activity of Daily Living (LCADL) scale was used to assess dyspnea during ADL in patients with COPD. Results: 26 severe COPD patients were included in the study, the clinical profile of the patients at baseline is shown in table 1. Mean change values in COPM performance subscale was of 2.66±1.15 p≤0.001 and satisfaction was of 1.66±1.66 p=0.005 . LCADL self-care subscale showed a mean change of 1±2 p=0.111. Conclusions: The results revealed that an occupational therapy program after hospitalization due to AECOPD can improves significantly the occupational performance of the patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".