Understanding quality of life within occupational therapy intervention research: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is little consensus regarding the meaning of quality of life (QOL) within occupational therapy literature. Measurement of QOL has varied in both research and practice. This scoping review explored the definitions and measures used within occupational therapy quantitative intervention research to evaluate QOL as an outcome. METHODS: The review was completed by searching six databases using occupational therapy-related and QOL-related terms. Data were extracted from each article and authors performed descriptive statistics to establish trends for both definitions and measures. RESULTS: Eighteen publications met the inclusion criteria. Seven articles included a definition of QOL. Most authors defined QOL as a multidimensional construct, comprised of varying domains. Fourteen different standardised measures and two non-standardised measures were utilised. CONCLUSIONS: A clear conceptualisation of QOL that incorporates occupational therapy values such as client-centredness and holism is needed to advocate for the profession's role in health care and to encourage the development of suitable outcome measures.
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 | 0.030 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".