Occupation-based intervention in therapy for upper limb musculoskeletal conditions: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Using meaningful activities as a treatment modality is characteristic of occupation-based intervention (OBI). The benefits of OBI have been described, but not the effectiveness thereof. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of OBI in relation to the type, commencement, duration and outcomes as reported in literature. Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted, including EBSCOHost, PubMed, Cochrane Register for Controlled Trials, Web of Science, OTSeeker, PEDro and Google Scholar. Search terms included 'occupation-based', 'occupation-centered', 'intervention', 'upper limb' and 'outcome measures'. Studies including OBI for neurological or paediatric cases were excluded. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Using the PEDro scale, three of the studies, all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), were viewed as high quality, one of fair and one of poor quality. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, a meta-analysis was not possible, and a narrative synthesis is presented. Five studies used interviewing together with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) to determine the client's occupational profile when choosing meaningful activities. The commencement and duration of OBI varied amongst the studies, and a variety of outcome measures were used to determine the effectiveness of OBI. Discussion: OBI used together with biomechanical approaches shows promising effectiveness. Outcome measures such as the COPM and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) that measure activity and participation, should be employed in client-centered practice. More robust scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of OBI is needed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".