Management of Chronic Pain by Occupational Therapist: A Description of Practice Profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Current state of knowledge regarding occupational therapy's contribution to chronic pain (CP) management has evolved over the past decade. Yet, has this been transferred to clinical practice? Purpose. Describe the current state of practice of CP management-specific occupational therapy. Method. An online survey was sent to occupational therapists working with CP patients. Findings. Of the 90 respondents (11.9%), 42.2% worked in primary care and 52.2% in secondary care. They reported that their primary role aimed at enabling occupation and providing vocational rehabilitation. The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) (87.8%), semi-structured interview (86.7%), and education on energy conservation (65.6%) and postural hygiene (60.0%) were the most frequently reported conceptual model, assessment, and intervention methods. Implications. Results illustrate the diversity of current occupational therapy practice in CP management and suggest opportunities for improvement to ensure best practices are adopted, by emphasizing an occupation-based vision of health and well-being.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".