The “What Now?” Workbook: Its potential utility following life-changing events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Following a life-changing event, such as a serious illness, people can experience a disruption of meaning and identity, making it difficult to move forward. The "What Now?" Workbook was developed to enable exploration of the personal meanings of specific occupations to facilitate future planning. PURPOSE.: The aim of this study was to investigate the utility-usability and usefulness-of the workbook in practice. METHOD.: Five occupational therapists trialled the workbook at a specialist cancer centre in England. Qualitative data were gathered via a focus group, an interview, and questionnaires. The data were subject to a realist thematic analysis. FINDINGS.: The findings showed the workbook to have actual and potential utility for service users in this setting, as perceived by their occupational therapists, by helping them to explore occupations, their loss, meanings, and future possibilities as part of an occupational therapy intervention. IMPLICATIONS.: The workbook appears to offer a structured yet flexible way to explore personal meanings of occupations, enabling service users to gain insights and move forward following a life-changing illness.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".