Occupational Therapy Interventions and Outcomes Measured in Residential Care: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: This scoping review identified the interventions and outcome measures used by occupational therapists working with older adults in residential care facilities.Methods: A five-step approach was used to retrieve and screen studies from five databases. Included studies described an occupational therapy intervention with older adults living in residential care facilities, were published in English, between 1990 and 2019 in a peer-reviewed publication. Data were mapped using domains of the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement.Results: Findings from 51 studies revealed that occupational therapists most commonly implemented occupations as the intervention with little focus on aspects of the environment. Outcomes predominantly measured person factors and less commonly occupational performance and engagement.Conclusion: The exploration of the past foci of practice and measurement of therapeutic impact enables occupational therapists to consider how their practice can enhance future occupational performance and engagement of residential care facility residents.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it