Bridging Research and Practice: A Preliminary Detailed Analysis of Current Upper Limb Occupational Therapy Dose and Content in Publicly Funded Poststroke Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To characterize the dose and content of poststroke upper limb usual care during inpatient occupational therapy (OT) sessions. Design: Two-week longitudinal observational study. Setting: Publicly funded inpatient rehabilitation center. Participants: Eight poststroke inpatients (N=8) receiving OT. No intervention groups were assigned; all participants underwent observation of usual care sessions. Interventions: No experimental intervention was applied. The OT sessions were filmed and analyzed. Main Outcome Measures: Session dose (frequency, time in OT, time allocated to upper-limb rehabilitation, repetition intensity) and content (rehabilitation activity types, upper-limb movement types), analyzed using a video-synchronized observational data collection system. Results: a total of 42 sessions were videotaped, translating into 2250 minutes of OT session dose and content. On average, 28.6±16.1 minutes (53.3% of total session time) was dedicated specifically to upper-limb movements. During this time, participants performed a mean of 209.9±175.7 upper-limb movement repetitions per session, most of which involved reaching movements (mean=111.5±97.7). Additionally, most of the time spent on upper-limb movements (mean=15.8±13.1 minutes) focused on active activities. Conclusions: This study offered valuable insights into the current dose and content of inpatient OT sessions for upper-limb rehabilitation in a publicly funded rehabilitation center. These findings can inform strategies to optimize stroke rehabilitation outcomes, with future research focusing on adapting them to real-world clinical settings.
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 | 0.026 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".