Characteristics of Occupational Therapy Interventions for Community-Dwelling Adults With Anxiety: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety is linked to decreased life quality and well-being. Living with an anxiety disorder results in higher personal and societal financial expenditure. Occupational therapists work with people living with anxiety in a variety of settings. A preliminary database search was conducted, and no current or underway systematic or scoping reviews on the topic were identified. Developing an overview of studies of occupational therapy interventions for people with anxiety is a necessary first step to understanding the existing knowledge and to increase the impact of future interventions. This scoping review will build on the findings of a previously conducted systematic review. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will identify the following: (1) what occupational therapy interventions exist for adults with anxiety and (2) the intervention characteristics including outcomes used and impact observed. METHODS: This protocol was reviewed by an occupational therapist as part of a patient and public involvement consultation. The review will consider all studies and publications of occupational therapy that include community-dwelling adults with a diagnosis of anxiety who are aged 18 years and older and diagnosed with an anxiety disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-5-TR] criteria). Databases to be searched are MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, PsycArticles, Psychology & Behavioural Sciences Collection, Embase, PubMed, TRIP, Proquest, Social Care Online, JBI EBP database, OpenGrey, and OALster. Titles and abstracts will be screened against the inclusion criteria using Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute. Potentially relevant studies will be retrieved in full and assessed against the inclusion criteria. Articles published in English will be included. No date limiters will be used. Study selection will be completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool. RESULTS: Data will be charted using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist in alignment with the review objectives. The scoping review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will produce valuable information about community-based interventions used to improve participation, life quality, and well-being for adults with anxiety to support the development of occupational therapy interventions. The findings will be disseminated through professional and National Health Service bodies, employer organizations, conferences, and research articles. The findings will be of value to health care professionals and researchers working to improve the lives of people living with anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/JS549; https://osf.io/js549/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41230.
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 | 0.063 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.008 |
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".