Clinical Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in Older Adult Rehabilitation and Nursing Homes: Perceptions among Occupational Therapists and Physiotherapists in Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Scientific evidence that supports the psychometric properties of the COPM as a tool to enable personalized care has been repeatedly shown. However, there is a lack of studies about its utility within the Spanish research community. Aim. This qualitative study seeks to ascertain the perceptions of professionals from social health centers, nursing homes, and Spanish rehabilitation services about the clinical utility of the COPM as a standardized instrument. Methods. Thirty occupational therapists and physiotherapists in four focus groups discussed the experience of applying the COPM. The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) incorporated a multidimensional model of clinical utility based on the components of acceptable, appropriate, accessible, and practicable by the clients, professionals, and institutions. Results and Discussion. The results of the utility study showed that the COPM helped professionals and clients to gain significant involvement in the treatment process. The COPM contributed to the process of further goal setting, occupation-based, and client-centered, thus achieving considerable satisfaction from the clients that had treatment. The professional training and adaptation to the geriatric population were vital to this process. Conclusion. The COPM is a useful and viable tool for the institutions that are supportive of a client-centered approach in the Spanish context.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".