Reasons for and outcome of occupational therapy consultation and treatment in the context of multidisciplinary cancer rehabilitation; a historical cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate reasons why people consulted an occupational therapist following cancer treatment, and to examine the outcome of occupational therapy interventions, in the context of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. METHODS: Data from 181 patients were collected retrospectively. The International Classification of Human Functioning and Health (ICF) was used to describe the reasons for occupational therapy consultation. Patients had completed the Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement (COPM) before and after the occupational therapy intervention. Change scores were calculated with a 95% confidence interval and a two-sided p-value obtained from a paired t-test. RESULTS: The reasons for occupational therapy consultation were predominantly within the ICF domain "Activities and Participation". On average, patients improved 3.0 points (95% CI 2.8-3.2) on the performance scale of the COPM, and 3.4 points (95% CI 3.2-3.7) on the satisfaction scale (both: p = <.001). CONCLUSION: The result of this study supports the added value of occupational therapy to cancer rehabilitation, and emphasise the positive effect of occupational therapy on everyday functioning. Controlled clinical studies are needed to strengthen the evidence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".