Improving upper extremity function in chronic stroke using occupational therapy task-oriented approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recovery of upper extremity function in chronic stroke requires functional rehabilitation. Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of task-oriented occupational therapy on the upper extremity function of chronic stroke clients. Materials and methods: Twenty participants were selected for the study, which was carried out through purposeful sampling process. The participants were then divided into two groups: the intervention and the control groups. Both groups were given a conventional rehabilitation program. The intervention group was also provided with occupational therapy task-oriented training within the duration of 6 weeks, with the consistency of 3 sessions a week, and 1 hour each session. The training program was individually designed based on an analysis of the three most important activities identified by the participants from the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Each training session consisted of task-oriented training (75%) and supplementary exercise (25%). The Functional Test of the Hemiparetic Upper Extremity-Thai version (FTHUE-Thai Version) and COPM were used as outcome measurements before and after the training programs. Results: The FTHUE-Thai version study showed that the intervention group had significant improvement in the function of paretic upper extremity (p<0.05). The COPM’s report found a dramatical change in performance and satisfaction of the intervention group after the training program (p<0.05). These changes were also significantly different when compared between groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: This study indicated the effect of occupational therapy task-oriented training based on client-centered approach on improving functions of paretic upper extremities, occupational performance, and satisfaction in people with chronic stroke.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".