Comparison of Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance and conventional occupational therapy on occupational performance in individuals with stroke: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) approach based on cognitive strategy in occupational therapy. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of CO-OP approach on occupational performance in individuals with hemiparetic stroke. METHODS: This study was designed as a 5-week, randomized, single-blind. Forty-three participants who had a diagnosis of first stroke were enrolled in this study. The participants were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n = 20) or the control group (n = 23). The experimental group conducted CO-OP approach while the control group conducted conventional occupational therapy based on occupational performance components. This study measured Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Performance Quality Rating Scale (PQRS). Outcome measurements were performed at baseline and post-intervention. RESULTS: After training, the scores of COPM and PQRS in trained task were significantly higher for the score in the experimental group than the control group. In addition, the non-trained task was significantly higher for the score in the experimental group than the control group in COPM and the PQRS. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the CO-OP approach is beneficial effects on the occupational performance to improvement in individuals with hemiparetic stroke, and have positive effects on generalization and transfer of acquired skills.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".