The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) as Routine Practice in Community-Based Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether patients experienced improved functional outcomes as a result of their admission to rehabilitation and to identify whether the service provided effective, patient-centered and goal-directed rehabilitation. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of admission and discharge data from patients accessing the service between 2011 and 2019. SETTING: Community-based interdisciplinary rehabilitation service. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients (N=612) admitted to the service. INTERVENTIONS: Routine care delivered with a median duration of 181 days and an interquartile range of 120-261 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) administered on admission and discharge and an improvement ≥2 in the COPM subscales of performance and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 612 participants, 96% had the COPM administered at admission (baseline) and 68% again at discharge. Performance and satisfaction were measured in 584 patients at admission, 406 at discharge, and 404 at both time points. For performance, 243 patients (60%) experienced an improvement (≥2), with an average of 2.2 points. For satisfaction, 268 patients (66%) experienced an improvement (≥2), with an average of 2.8 points. Factors influencing outcomes, differed. For each 10 year increase in patient age, the average improvement in satisfaction was 0.26 points lower (95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.45) after adjusting for sex, duration, completion, and health condition. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of patient-related factors and regardless of age, sex, health condition, or discharge plan, the majority of patients reported a positive functional outcome in COPM Performance and satisfaction as a result of time spent in the community-based rehabilitation service. This service provided equitable care and patient-centered, goal-focused, and outcome-based therapy that enabled patients to improve their functional capacity.
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 | 0.026 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".