Occupational therapy and psychosis: POINTER feasibility study for a pragmatic clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The dearth of clinical trials of individualised occupational therapy with people with a diagnosis of psychosis limits the evidence base globally for occupational therapy practice. This study evaluated the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic clinical trial. Method Mixed methods design using a pragmatic perspective; two-centre, one-group pretest-posttest study, at six months. POINTER Occupational Intervention Specification captured routine individualised occupational therapy. Process evaluation included recruitment, retention, intervention delivery, fidelity, adherence and outcome measurement. The primary outcome was participation in activities of everyday life, measured by Time Use Survey, Participation Scale and Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure measured self-reported experience of and satisfaction with occupational performance. The Short Form-36v2 Health Survey measured health-related quality of life, a secondary outcome. Participants’ experiences were explored using a questionnaire. Intervention providers’ perspectives were investigated via the POINTER occupational intervention log and focus groups. Results Recruitment was (20/36) and drop-out 20% (4/20). Fidelity was 77%, and adherence was good; POINTER had validity and utility. Outcome measurement was acceptable to participants, indicating increased participation in activities of everyday life. Conclusion A larger clinical trial is merited; recruitment processes need further exploration, and outcome measurement needs refining.
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 | 0.104 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".