Occupational performance problems identified by 507 patients: An insight that can guide occupation-based hand therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Several barriers challenge the use of occupation-based interventions in hand therapy. An outpatient clinical setting can be prepared in such a way as to address the most common occupational performance problems which might promote an occupation-based intervention. To this end, more knowledge is needed about which problems patients with hand-related disorders consider most important. Methods Interviews using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)were conducted with 507 patients. Data were entered into Microsoft Excel in the COPM categories: Self-care, productivity and leisure and analysed using descriptive statistics. Data concerning main problem areas were categorized according to the Taxonomic Code of Occupational Performance (TCOP). The analysis included the number of prioritized occupational performance problems (NPOPP) in each COPM category/subcategory; the NPOPP in each category is relative to gender and age and the most frequent problems. Results The total NPOPP was 2384. Problems within productivity and self-care constituted the largest proportion, respectively, 46% and 40%. Gender or age affected the NPOPP in each category to a limited extend. Problems were expressed at all levels in the TCOP, except the lowest level. The most frequently expressed problem was use of utensils when eating. Conclusion The problems mostly concern productivity and self-care, regardless of gender or age. Patients consider problems at the levels of occupation, activities, tasks and actions to be important and meaningful to address in their intervention. This study provides useful knowledge that can be applied when preparing a setting to address the most common problems, which could lead to the promotion of occupation-based interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".