EXPLORING THE USE OF THE CANADIAN OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE (COPM) IN UKRAINE: DETERMINING THE NEED
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. The goal of the study was to explore the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) by occupational therapists in Ukraine and determining the perceived need for the COPM in Ukraine. Methods. A pilot survey was conducted with 213 Ukrainian occupational therapists using Qualtrics. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and interpreted via descriptive statistics and thematic analysis assessing the therapists’ knowledge of the COPM, frequency of use, perceived benefits, and barriers to its use. Results. Results showed that while 58% of Ukrainian occupational therapists report some usage of the COPM in clinical practice, frequency of use is occasional rather than systemic. Perceived barriers to using the COPM included: lack of knowledge of the COPM and skills to administer it, lack of appreciation of the value of the COPM for clinical practice, time constraints, lack of integration of the COPM into documentation systems and reluctance to using the COPM for fear of being perceived unprofessional by the patients. Despite these challenges, the COPM was evaluated highly (8 out of 10) by the participants. The study also revealed a prevalent use of unauthorized Ukrainian translations of the COPM, with only 13% of therapists using the official translation version. Conclusions. The findings highlight the need for a rigorous, evidence-informed Ukrainian translation of the COPM and additional education of Ukrainian occupational therapists for its competent use. The study suggests that barriers to using the COPM may stem from a lack of understanding of the philosophy of occupation as the key concept of the profession and calls for further research into the use of occupation- and client-focused outcome measures in a medically dominated environment in Ukraine.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".