Table 3 Pilot aspects related to delivery of the ABLE 2.0 (registrationsa from OTs (n = 3) and participants (n = 6))
Session 1 | Session 2 | Sessions 3–7 | Final session | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of OT registrations: n (%) | 5 (83) b | 4 (100) | 6 (100) | 2 (67) b | |
Session 1 | The session gave me knowledge on which ADL tasks and skills are problematic: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | |||
The session clarified focus (ADL tasks and skills) for intervention: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | ||||
The participant and I established a good basis for further cooperation: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | ||||
Session 2 | The dialogue on discrepancy worked well: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | |||
The dialogue on goal setting worked well: median (range) | 3.0 (2–5) | ||||
The dialogue on reasons for ADL problems worked well: median (range) | 4.0 (4) | ||||
Sessions 3–7 | The session contributed to goal attainment: median (range) | 3.0 (2–4) | |||
The participant and I had a good cooperation on finding new strategies: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | ||||
The participant was willing to try new strategies: median (range) | 4.0 (2–5) | ||||
Final session | The intervention overall contributed to goal attainment: (range) | (3) | |||
The intervention overall contributed to better ADL ability: (range) | (4) | ||||
I believe client will carry on using new strategies: (range) | (3, 4) | ||||
Questions asked on all sessions | Confidence in delivering: median (range) | 4.0 (4–5) | 4.5 (3–5) | 4.0 (3–5) | (4, 5) |
OT engagement: median (range) | 4.5 (4–5) | 5.0 (4–5) | 4.0 (3–5) | (5) | |
Involvement of client: median (range) | 3.5 (3–4) | 4.0 (4) | 4.0 (3–4) | (4, 5) | |
Perceived meaningfulness: median (range) | 4.0 (3–4) | 4.5 (3–5) | 4.0 (2–5) | (4, 5) | |
Perceived client meaningfulness: median (range) | 3.5 (3–4) | 3.5 (3–5) | 3.5 (3–4) | (4, 5) | |
Perceived satisfaction on delivery: median (range) | 3.5 (2–4) | 3.5 (3–5) | 4.0 (2–5) | (4, 5) | |
Perceived client satisfaction: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | 3.5 (3–5) | 4.0 (3–5) | (4, 5) | |
Number of participant registrations: n (%) | 5 (83) | 4 (100) | 6 (100) | 2 (67) | |
Session 1 | ADL-I and AMPS gave me new knowledge on my ADL problems: median (range) | 2.0 (2–3) | |||
ADL-I and AMPS clarified focus for intervention: median (range) | 4.0 (2–4) | ||||
OT and I established a good basis for further cooperation: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | ||||
I can see a purpose in participating in program: median (range) | 4.0 (2–5) | ||||
Session 2 | I liked the work on goal setting: median (range) | 4.0 (4) | |||
It was relevant to talk about reasons for my ADL problems: median (range) | 4.0 (3–4) | ||||
I can see a purpose in participating in program: median (range) | 4.0 (4) | ||||
Sessions 3–7 | Session contributed to goal attainment: median (range) | 3.5 (3–5) | |||
I have at this point attained my goals: median (range) | 3.0 (2–3) | ||||
I can see a purpose in participating in program: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | ||||
Final session | Intervention overall contributed to goal attainment: (range) | (3, 4) | |||
Intervention overall contributed to better ADL ability: (range) | (3, 4) | ||||
I will carry on using the new strategies: (range) | (3, 4) | ||||
Questions asked on all session | I felt informed: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | 4.0 (4) | 3.5 (3–5) | (3, 4) |
I felt involved: median (range) | 4.0 (4–5) | 4.0 (3–4) | 4.0 (3–5) | (4) | |
Session was meaningful to me: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | 4.0 (4) | 4.0 (3–5) | (4, 5) | |
Session was satisfactory to me: median (range) | 4.0 (3–5) | 4.0 (4) | 4.0 (4–5) | (4) | |