Timepoint for return to occupations post‐burn injury using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was implemented at a state-wide burns service to ensure compliance with current best evidence as outlined by the Australian and New Zealand Burns Association 'burn trauma rehabilitation: allied health practice guidelines'- Chapter 7 Measuring Post-Burn Recovery, as a standard outcome measure for individuals with an admission time greater than 24 h. The primary aim of this study is to determine if individuals have a minimal important change in performance and satisfaction with activities that were identified as problematic on the COPM prior to their acute discharge. Previous research confirmed the feasibility of using the COPM in the acute burn ward and recommended the most appropriate timepoint for re-measurement be confirmed, which is the secondary objective of this study. The benefits of confirming this timepoint include ensuring efficient use of clinicians' time without compromising the accuracy of the assessment and ensuring effective translation of the guidelines' recommendation. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study was undertaken, where all individuals who previously completed a COPM prior to acute discharge were sought to complete a re-assessment while accessing outpatient services. Time frames for re-assessment were open. Only individuals who were actively receiving occupational therapy outpatient services were included. COPM assessments were completed in person where possible, particularly for participants who required an interpreter, with phone and video calls also used when needed. RESULTS: A total of 37 participants were included, with the timeframe between initial and post-COPM assessment ranging from 2 to 643 days. Outcomes plateaued at approximately 12 months (365 days) post-initial measurement (prior to discharge from acute ward). The most common occupational performance goals that participants identified were returning to work, sport, and driving. 86.5% of participants increased their satisfaction with these activities. The results of this study demonstrate improvements across the domains of performance and satisfaction occur for individuals with burns at approximately 3 months and 12 months post-injury. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, it is suggested that when using the COPM assessment in a tertiary burn setting, re-measurement be completed no earlier than 3 months and later than 12 months from burn injury, or upon discharge from the service. The findings from this study will be translated into clinical practice at this facility.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".