Intensive client-centred occupational therapy in the home improves older adults’ occupational performance. Results from a Danish randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in enabling older adults' occupational performance. We tested whether 11 weeks of intensive client-centred occupational therapy (ICC-OT) was superior to usual practice in improving the occupational performance of home-dwelling older adults. METHODS: An assessor-masked randomized controlled trial among adults 60 + with chronic health issues, who received or applied for homecare services. Recruitment took place September 2012 to April 2014. All participants received practical and personal assistance and meal delivery as needed. In addition, they were randomized to receive either a maximum 22 sessions of occupation-based ICC-OT (N = 59) or to receive usual practice with a maximum three sessions of occupational therapy (N = 60). The primary outcome was self-rated occupational performance assessed with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). RESULTS: No important adverse events occurred. ICC-OT was accepted by 46 participants (88%), usual practice by 60 (100%). After 3 months, the ICC-OT-group had improved 1.86 points on COPM performance; the Usual-Practice group had improved 0.61 points. The between-group difference was statistically significant (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 2.02), t-test: p = 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: ICC-OT improved older adults' occupational performance more effectively than usual practice. This result may benefit older adults and support programmatic changes.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".