Occupational Therapy Home Programs for Cerebral Palsy: Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to assess the effectiveness of an occupational therapy home program (OTHP), compared with no OTHP, with respect to function and parent satisfaction with child function, participation, goal attainment, and quality of upper limb skill in school-aged children with cerebral palsy. METHODS: Thirty-six children with cerebral palsy (mean age: 7.7 years; male: 69%; Gross Motor Function Classification System: level I, 47%; level II, 14%; level III, 16%; level IV, 7%; level V, 16%; spasticity, 85%; dyskinesia, 14%; ataxia, 3%) were randomly and equally assigned to OTHPs for 8 or 4 weeks or to no OTHP. The primary end point was Canadian Occupational Performance Measure scores 8 weeks after baseline. Secondary measures were recorded at 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: Eight weeks of OTHP produced statistically significant differences in function and parent satisfaction with function, compared with no OTHP. Parents in the 4-week OTHP group did not discontinue use at 4 weeks, as instructed, and continued for 8 weeks; results demonstrated statistically significant differences, compared with no OTHP. There was no difference in primary or secondary end point measures between intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Pediatricians can advise families that OTHPs developed with a collaborative, evidence-based approach and implemented by parents at home were clinically effective if implemented 17.5 times per month for an average of 16.5 minutes per session.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".