Occupational Performance 1 Year After a Distal Radius Fracture From the Perspective of the <i>International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Distal radius fractures (DRFs) frequently compromise independent functioning. OBJECTIVE: To analyze occupational performance post-DRF using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and related interviews, guided by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). COPM score was compared with standard metrics: Patient-Reported Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) and Participation Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ). METHOD: Through a semistructured COPM interview, participants highlighted self-care, productivity, and leisure. They completed the PRWE and PBQ, linking results to ICF sets. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Outpatient hand surgery clinic at a trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N = 120), 1 yr post-DRF. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incorporated COPM, PRWE, and PBQ, linked to ICF. RESULTS: Analysis identified 73 codes, aligning with 30 ICF Hand Conditions codes. Main concerns related to self-care (15.21%), leisure (12.16%), and productivity (16.22%). Major challenges pertained to domestic (67.00%) and civic life (64.53%) within ICF. Occupational performance was positively correlated with participation (r = .62) and inversely with disability (r = -.62). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: DRFs result in varied occupational challenges that are not always reflected in standard measures. The COPM offers a comprehensive insight into post-DRF patient challenges, emphasizing the value of diverse clinical assessment approaches. What This Article Adds: This study highlights the importance of a holistic approach in occupational therapy for DRF patients, revealing that standard measurements might overlook key challenges that they face. By adopting broader evaluative methods, occupational therapists can better address patient-specific needs and enhance their rehabilitation outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".