Preliminary analysis of the clinical feasibility of a practice intervention derived from the occupational therapy intervention process model for patients with stroke in the convalescence stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study lays the groundwork for the Occupational Therapy Intervention Process Model (OTIPM) run by occupational therapy practitioners for patients with stroke. We explored the feasibility of a treatment approach based on the OTIPM for patients with stroke and the clinical feasibility of evaluating the degree of a collaborative relationship between patients and occupational therapists. Method: This pilot trial was conducted as a one-group pre-test-post-test study and two-group comparison on 16 patients with stroke in the convalescence stage. We used the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), Functional Independence Measure, Japan Stroke Scale of Motor Function, and the Collaborative Relationship Scale between clients and occupational therapists to assess outcomes. Results: Patients demonstrated a significant improvement on the outcome measures after intervention. Moreover, the good collaborative relationship group demonstrated significantly higher process skills in AMPS and satisfaction in COPM than the poor collaborative relationship group. Conclusion: This preliminary study revealed that short-term OTIPM for patients with stroke may be a feasible clinical practice. In addition, evaluating the degree of the difference in the collaborative relationship between patients and occupational therapists would be a feasible clinical 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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".