Effects of Time-Use Intervention as Occupation-Based Practice on Occupational Participation for Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the effects of time-use intervention on the six theoretical factors influencing occupational participation for stroke survivors. A consecutive sample of 30 stroke survivors receiving in-patient occupational therapy participated. As a non-blinded randomized controlled design, a time-use intervention was intervened using the occupational questionnaire and Canadian occupational performance measure. A comparison with the standard care group was made using the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST) to examine the effect at baseline and 10 weeks posttest. After intervention, the intervention group participants increased total MOHOST scores (p < .01) and habituation subscale (p < .05) more than did the comparison group. In before-and-after intervention comparisons of each group, total MOHOST score and four subscales (i.e., volition, habituation, communication/interaction skills, process skills) increased and motor skills did not increase for both groups, whereas environment score improved only in the intervention group. By restructuring daily life disrupted due to sudden hospitalization, the time-use intervention may promote factors impacting stroke survivors' participation in life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".