Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in Primary Care: A Profile of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) can be used as an outcome measure in primary care and to identify the occupational performance profiles in this setting. METHOD: First, the COPM was administered to all eligible clients at two sites. Second, a focus group with participating occupational therapists explored the feasibility of using the COPM in primary care. RESULTS: A total of 161 COPMs were initially administered. Self-care goals were identified most frequently (n = 248), followed by productivity (n = 229) and leisure (n = 179) goals (total goals = 656). Mean initial performance and satisfactions scores were 3.2 and 2.8, respectively. The average change (n = 22) scores were 2.1 and 2.6, respectively. CONCLUSION: The COPM is an invaluable tool to guide initial assessments and offer an occupation-focused lens. Given the lifespan approach and an emphasis on screening and assessment, the challenge was finding the opportunity for readministration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".