Occupational performance coaching for stroke survivors delivered via telerehabilitation using a single-case experimental design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sustaining a stroke has a devastating, long-term impact on participation in everyday life. Despite the recognition of participation as a key outcome of stroke rehabilitation, there are few effective interventions that address participation. Occupational performance coaching is a promising intervention designed to improve participation among stroke survivors. Delivery of occupational performance coaching using telerehabilitation could improve access. This study examined the feasibility, acceptability and potential efficacy of telerehabilitation occupational performance coaching. METHOD: A single-case experimental design was used. Six community-dwelling stroke survivors received 10 sessions of telerehabilitation occupational performance coaching over 16 weeks. We examined the feasibility and acceptability of telerehabilitation occupational performance coaching, improvement in performance and satisfaction with identified goals. RESULTS: Telerehabilitation occupational performance coaching was feasible and acceptable to deliver; participants who started the intervention completed it and reported high satisfaction and a strong therapeutic relationship. All participants experienced technological issues that required resolution. Goal-performance and/or satisfaction improved for five of six participants. Sixty-four percent of goals showed trends for improvement and 43% showed significant improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the feasibility and acceptability of telerehabilitation occupational performance coaching, along with its efficacy for improving performance and satisfaction with performance of goals. Further research is needed to prove the effectiveness of telerehabilitation occupational performance coaching and to determine who may benefit most.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".