Measuring Client-Centered Outcomes in an Occupational Therapy Student Teaching Clinic Using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Student teaching clinics (STCs) are an increasingly popular means of providing clinical learning opportunities to health profession students. Although research exists on the learning outcomes of students participating in STCs, little research exists on the outcomes of clients participating in STCs. OBJECTIVE: To examine client-perceived outcomes at a university-based occupational therapy STC in the Pacific Northwest. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included all clients (pediatric and adult) attending the STC during spring 2016. Seventy client charts were reviewed, and 56 charts (80%) met the study inclusion criteria. INTERVENTION: Intervention included 12 wk of student-led occupational therapy that was client centered and occupation based. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Client perceptions of performance and satisfaction in self-identified valued occupations were measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) before and after intervention. RESULTS: Clients demonstrated statistically significant increases in both COPM Performance and Satisfaction scores as well as clinically significant improvement in Satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clients reported improvements in performance and satisfaction in valued occupations after attending an STC. The COPM has potential to be used as a client-reported outcome measure for occupational therapy services in STCs, across diagnoses and ages. Areas for future research and clinical implications are discussed. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: This study demonstrates that STCs have the potential to provide positive outcomes for clients as well as student therapists. It provides preliminary support for using the COPM to assess client outcomes in STCs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".