Effectiveness of a task-oriented training on occupational performance, functional independence, and fatigue in children with childhood cancer: a randomized-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The objective of the study is to explore the effectiveness of task-oriented training (TOT) on occupational performance, functional independence, and fatigue of children with cancer. Method Two hundred and thirteen children (101 females, 112 males) with cancer were randomized to experimental (n = 112; 9.53±2.23 years) or control (n = 101; 7.93±1.98 years) groups. The experimental group received a TOT together with a conventional occupational therapy (COT), while the control group received only a COT. Both groups received 20 sessions of therapy. The outcomes regarding occupational performance via the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, functional independence via the Functional Independence Measure for Children and fatigue via the Visual Analog Scale were evaluated by the blind evaluators before and after the interventions in the hospital setting. Results The occupational performance and satisfaction (p<0.001) scores showed statistically significant differences in the experimental group compared to the control group (p<0.01). A statistically significant improvement was determined in functional independence for both groups (p< 0.001). The experimental group indicated a significant reduction in fatigue (p values for fatigue before, during, after activity, morning and evening: p< 0.001) and in the control group (P values for fatigue all situation: p< 0.05). Conclusion The TOT seems to ensure more beneficial effects in increasing occupational performance, improving functional independence in daily activities, and decreasing fatigue at the early phases of inpatient treatment of childhood cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".