Achieving patient-centred goals in oncology: A retrospective analysis of a domestic activities of daily living group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This retrospective study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a domestic activities of daily living group on the occupational performance and satisfaction of adult inpatients with cancer. Method A retrospective analysis was completed with an initial cohort of patients who participated in the group during their acute inpatient oncology admission. As part of their routine care, patients completed the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure before and after their participation in the group. The occupational performance and satisfaction scores of 31 adults (mean age 71.61 years, 19 females) were reported descriptively and within-group changes analysed using one-sample t-test analyses and bootstrapping. Results Most (71%) of the 31 patients were discharged home following their inpatient stay. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure mean (SD) change scores were 3.44 (3.90) for performance and 2.04 (2.16) for satisfaction following participation in one domestic activities of daily living intervention group session. Statistically significant improvements in patients’ Canadian Occupational Performance Measure performance and satisfaction scores were demonstrated in the one-sample t-test ( p < .002) and bootstrapping sampling ( p < .002). Conclusion Acute oncology inpatients who attended a domestic activities of daily living intervention group reported a positive change in Canadian Occupational Performance Measure occupational performance and satisfaction. This study highlights the potential benefit of a group-based domestic activities of daily living intervention in an acute oncology setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".