Occupational Therapy Programming Facilitates Goal Attainment in a Community Work Rehabilitation Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An occupational therapy program for participants with mental health challenges, a history of serious mental illness, recovering from substance use disorders, on parole/probation, and/or experiencing homelessness was implemented in a community work rehabilitation setting. The impact of occupational therapy interventions focused on stress and anger management, sleep hygiene, anxiety and depression management, relapse prevention for addiction, vocational and academic skill building, money management, healthy eating, and relationship and leisure skill development. Participant satisfaction and performance scores regarding individual goal setting and attainment was collected and analyzed via retrospective review of pre/post outcome scores ( n = 44) obtained through the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Results indicated significant differences ( p < .05) from baseline to end of the program, with high effect sizes ( d = 1.79–1.94). End of program participant satisfaction and performance scores were highly correlated ( r = .88, p < .00), indicating those who were highly satisfied reported greater performance scores. Post discharge narrative participant responses also support COPM outcomes. Findings suggest community-based occupational therapy may improve individual performance and satisfaction in daily activities while enhancing participation in tasks that are healthy and significant to the person.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".