当院回復期リハビリテーション病棟入院患者におけるCanadian Occupational Performance Measure を用いたリハビリテーション効果
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), a client-centered outcome measure, allows clients to actively participate in identifying their occupational performance challenges and evaluating their occupational performance outcomes. This approach facilitates collaboration not only among occupational therapists but also with other healthcare professionals. Meanwhile, the Performance Index was introduced as an outcome measure to provide highquality rehabilitation in convalescent rehabilitation wards. This study aimed to examine the intervention effects of the COPM by using the Performance Index as an outcome measure. The Performance Index improved significantly In the COPM intervention group compared to the control group (intervention group: 71.7 ± 24.3, control group: 51.3 ± 15.9). Additionally, the COPM intervention group showed significant improvements in both occupational performance and satisfaction with the performance, as well as in health-related quality of life. These findings suggest that setting agreed-upon goals using the COPM and sharing occupational tasks among the ward staff team can enhance the Performance Index and provide high-quality rehabilitation. This study highlights the potential of the COPM to achieve better rehabilitation outcomes by fostering a collaborative environment and ensuring client involvement in the therapeutic process. The significant improvements in the Performance Index and other related measures underscore the importance of client-centered approaches in rehabilitation settings. This research contributes to the growing evidence supporting the effectiveness of the COPM in diverse healthcare contexts, reinforcing its value as a tool for enhancing rehabilitation quality and client satisfaction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".