Comparing cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance and motivational interviewing in stroke rehabilitation: A protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Long-term disability following stroke significantly affects functional abilities and daily living activities. This protocol outlines a planned three-arm randomized controlled trial to compare effects of Motivational Interviewing (MI) and Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) on occupational performance among individuals with chronic stroke. Method: Sixty individuals with chronic stroke will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: CO-OP, MI, or control. The primary outcome of interest is occupational performance, evaluated using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Performance Quality Rating Scale (PQRS). Secondary outcomes include functional independence, measured by Functional Independence Measurement (FIM), and self-efficacy, assessed with General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES). Assessments will be conducted at baseline, postintervention (5 weeks), and 1-month follow-up. Data will be analyzed using SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The Shapiro-Wilk test will assess data normality. For quantitative variables, ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests will be used depending on distribution. Qualitative variables will be analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Discussion: This protocol describes the methodology for comparing the effectiveness of CO-OP and MI in improving occupational performance in individuals with stroke. The findings from the planned study will inform future large-scale trials and may guide clinical decision-making in rehabilitation settings. Trial Registration: IRCT20180515039676N1.
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 | 0.068 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.011 |
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".