Describing Occupational Therapy Practice for Evaluating Older Adults with Cognitive Impairments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims This study aimed to describe how occupational therapists evaluate older adults with cognitive impairments.Methods A descriptive qualitative study design was used. Four focus groups were conducted with 16 occupational therapists working with cognitively impaired older adults in institutional and community care settings. An inductive thematic analysis of the content of the interviews was applied.Results Occupational therapists described a three-stage assessment process that was predominantly occupation-based, linear and iterative: (a) gathering information from the older adult, their care network and family members to plan the assessment, (b) assessing cognitive impairment and occupational performance using non-standardized observations and standardized tests, and (c) applying clinical reasoning to predict further performance issues and safety. Despite using a predominantly occupation-based assessment process, occupational therapists reported a lack confidence to predict safety.Conclusion Occupational therapists may require additional knowledge, skills and tools to support them in assessing older adults with cognitive impairments.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it