Effects of Client‐Centered Occupational Therapy Intervention in Older Adults With Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of client‐centered occupational therapy intervention on the mental health, activities of daily living (ADL), and community participation of older adults with depression. Methods: This study was a single‐blind, randomized controlled study conducted on older adults with depression, and those who met the selection and exclusion criteria were randomly divided into an experimental group of 15 people and a control group of 15 people. The experimental group performed client‐centered occupational therapy intervention using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Barth Time Construction (BTC), and the control group performed case management and a strength‐brain exercise program. Both groups underwent intervention twice a week for 60 min, for a total of 16 sessions. Before and after the intervention, depression, anxiety, stress, ADL, and community partitioning were measured using assessment tools with proven reliability and validity in both the experimental group and the control group. Results: The experimental group exhibited significant changes after the intervention in depression, anxiety, stress, social integration, and community integration scores ( p < 0.05 and p < 0.01), while the control group showed significant changes only in depression scores ( p < 0.05). As a result of comparing the amount of change between the experimental and control groups, significant differences were found in social integration among the areas of depression, stress, and community integration ( p < 0.05 and p < 0.01). Conclusion: These results suggest that client‐centered occupational therapy intervention could serve as an effective intervention for improving mental health, ADL, and community participation in older adults with depression. Trial Registration: Korea Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS): KCT0009358
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".