Routine use proportion and determining factors of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in the real-world setting: A retrospective cross-sectional study in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this retrospective cross-sectional study is to examine the routine use proportion and factors determining the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in the real-world subacute rehabilitation setting. Methods This study retrospectively collected data from all inpatients and occupational therapists at a single Japanese subacute rehabilitation ward during 2017, including Functional Independence Measure motor/cognitive scores, years of experience, and rate of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure administration (that is, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure proportion). Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify the determining factors of daily routine Canadian Occupational Performance Measure use/non-use, after which cut-off values were calculated. Results Of the 619 included clients, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was applied in 232 cases (37%). A multiple logistic regression analysis revealed two significant determining factors of its use: Canadian Occupational Performance Measure proportion (odds ratio, 1.06) and Functional Independence Measure cognitive item (odds ratio, 1.22). The cut-off value, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively, were 35.4%, 0.73, and 0.36 ( p < 0.0001) for the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure proportion and 25.5, 0.84, and 0.45 ( p < 0.0001) for the Functional Independence Measure cognitive score. Conclusion The client’s high-level cognitive skill and occupational therapist’s attitude may determine the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".