Occupational performance coaching for stroke survivors (OPC-Stroke): Understanding of mechanisms of actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Occupational performance coaching modified for stroke survivors is a promising new intervention to improve occupational performance post stroke. In the intervention, following client-centred occupational goal-setting, clients are led through strengths-based problem-solving and experimentation. Emotional support, individualized education and goal-focused problem-solving are hypothesized as key elements. Examination of clients’ experiences is necessary to better understand how occupational performance coaching modified for stroke survivors works, and improve its potential effectiveness. Method A descriptive qualitative study was embedded in a pilot randomized controlled trial. Semi-structured interviews were completed with seven participants in the treatment arm who received occupational performance coaching modified for stroke survivors. Qualitative content analysis was used for analysis. Findings Three categories were identified related to participants’ experiences of occupational performance coaching modified for stroke survivors: (a) the coaching was helpful; (b) the coaching provided opportunity for insightful reflection and (c) a different approach was preferred. Findings also lend support to the critical role of hypothesized key components and theorized mechanisms of action, and demonstrate the overarching role of the therapeutic relationship and the contribution of personal characteristics. Conclusion The revised theoretical understanding of occupational performance coaching modified for stroke survivors provides a valuable framework for communicating the actions that occupational therapists take in enabling occupation and emphasizes the role of the therapeutic relationship in client-centred approaches to improving occupational performance post stroke.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".