Combining goal setting and achievement with occupational therapy to improve pain, psychological factors and physical activity in patients after high tibial osteotomy: A non-randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Psychological factors contribute to chronic pain and may lead to physical inactivity and poor functional outcomes. Purpose We conducted a non-randomized controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness of goal setting and achievement following occupational therapy (OT) intervention to improve pain, psychological factors, and physical activity among patients after high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Method We analyzed the data of 31 patients who underwent HTO, allocated into OT intervention and control groups. Goal achievement was encouraged through OT in the intervention groups; the control groups did not receive OT intervention. Outcome measures included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) score (before and after the OT intervention), walking pain, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, depression, pain self-efficacy, and physical activity level. Results OT significantly improved the COPM score, depression, and physical activity. At the final assessment, the depression score was lower while the step count and physical activity time were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Embedding goal setting and achievement as part of an OT intervention improved the outcomes after HTO.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".