Participant Outcomes and Facilitator Experiences Following a Community Living Skills Program for Adult Mental Health Consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcomes from participating in a six-week small-group living skills program, periodically implemented over two years with twelve adult mental health consumers, are reported as a case study. Occupational therapy and recovery-oriented approaches underpinned the development and implementation of the program thus it was important that outcome measures aligned with these perspectives. Data were gathered pre and post program using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Life Skills Profile-16 (LSP-16) in each iteration of the program. Two occupational therapy program facilitators were interviewed about their experience of running the program and using these measurement tools. COPM occupational performance (p = 0.001) and COPM satisfaction (p = 0.004) scores indicated significant change at post-program whereas the LSP-16 total and subscale scores did not (p = 0.132 for total scores). Facilitator insights into the experience of implementing the living skills program and the perceived alignment of the COPM and LSP-16 with recovery-oriented practice are reported.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".