A Stroke Rehabilitation Educational Program for Occupational Therapy Students and Practitioners: Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are gaps in knowledge translation (KT) of current evidence-based practices regarding stroke assessment and rehabilitation delivered through teletherapy. A lack of this knowledge can prevent occupational therapy (OT) students and practitioners from implementing current research findings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to create an educational program to translate knowledge into practice regarding the remote delivery of stroke assessment and rehabilitation to OT students and practitioners. Four areas of focus were addressed in the educational program, including KT, task-oriented training, stroke assessments, and telerehabilitation. METHODS: Two pilot studies were conducted to assess the knowledge gained via pretests and posttests of knowledge, followed by a System Usability Scale and general feedback questionnaire. Participants in study 1 were 5 OT practitioners and 1 OT assistant. Participants in study 2 were 9 current OT students. Four 1-hour modules were emailed weekly to participants over the course of 4 weeks, with each module covering a different topic (KT, task-oriented training, stroke assessments, and telerehabilitation). Preliminary results were reviewed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Statistically significant results were found with increased scores of knowledge for both students and practitioners. Most of the educational modules had an above-average score regarding value and positive feedback for the educational program as a whole from the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results of this pilot study indicate that a web-based educational program is a valuable, informational method of increasing the translation of knowledge in the remote delivery of stroke assessment and rehabilitation. OT students and practitioners found the information presented to be valuable and relevant to their future profession and current practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".