The role of occupational therapy for the self‐management of rheumatoid arthritis: A protocol for a mixed methods systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists can support people with rheumatoid arthritis to self-manage their disease symptoms and engage in daily activities. This protocol reports a review to broaden understanding of what is known about the role of occupational therapy in the self-management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Studies involving adults with rheumatoid arthritis, having participated in self-management involving occupational therapy, will be included. Patient involvement will help develop the search strategy by identifying patient-centred interventions and outcomes to complement those identified by researchers. An electronic search will be performed using several bibliographic databases, including grey literature from subject-specific, health-related, and social care databases. Searches will run from the database inception until the date that the search is conducted (December 2021-May 2022). Retrieved studies will be de-duplicated, and the remaining titles and abstracts will be screened by three reviewers. Full texts of all eligible studies will be independently reviewed by the reviewers to select papers for data extraction and quality assessment. Outcomes are function, pain, fatigue and lived experience. For quantitative studies, data will be synthesised using descriptive statistics in text and tables, whereas for qualitative studies, data will be synthesised using thematic synthesis. DISCUSSION: This review will synthesise current evidence on how occupational therapy can help the self-management of rheumatoid arthritis. It will include evidence of best practice, including advice, education and training provided by occupational therapists. These findings can inform future research and the selection of strategies to promote quality of life for people with rheumatoid arthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022302205.
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 | 0.145 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.011 |
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".