Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Interventions on Activities of Daily Living, Cognitive Function, and Physical Function in Middle-Aged and Older People with Chronic Stroke: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Occupational therapy (OT) interventions on activities of daily living (ADL), cognitive functions, and physical function in middle-aged and older people with chronic stroke. Methods: A systematic review search until November 2024 using five generic databases: PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and OT seeker. The PRISMA checklist, RoB 2 (Cochrane, London, UK), and GRADEpro (Evidence Prime Inc., Hamilton, CA) tools assessed the evidence’s methodological quality and certainty. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (code: CRD42024568225). Results: Of 1733 records were identified across the databases, nine studies were analyzed using the PICOS format. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in independent performance of activities of daily living (ADL), as measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), in favor of the experimental groups (p = 0.03). No significant differences were found for the other variables analyzed. Conclusions: Performance on ADLs improved significantly according to the COPM, whereas no significant improvements in cognitive or physical function were observed among middle-aged and older chronic stroke survivors. Individual studies highlight the potential benefits of OT interventions that combine cognitive, motor, and technological approaches, such as virtual reality and brain stimulation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".