The Effect of Occupational Therapy Intervention Within an Integrative & Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, there are no studies that show efficacy of occupational therapy intervention for people with chronic pain. The purpose ofthe study was to examine the efficacy of occupational therapy intervention, within a multidisciplinary and integrative team, for people suffering from chronic pain. The study involved four females and two male participants, who received a combination of occupational therapy, chiropractic, and structural integration services over a four to six week period. Their functional outcomes were measured before and after the intervention period utilizing the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI). The results showed that four out of the six participants had clinically important changes in their occupational satisfaction and performance, and all of the participants had a positive change. The categories from the CPCI that were found to be significant with an [alpha] = .05 were guarding at .05, and exercise at .02. The results of this study indicate that occupational therapy can be effective for improving overall function and positive coping strategies in people who have chronic pain. It has been shown that occupational therapists are able to compliment and work with conventional and alternative practitioners on a multidisciplinary team. It is recommended that more research be done in the future in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".