The impact of occupational therapy in Parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial including process and potential impact of occupational therapy in Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Process and outcome were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated in an exploratory multicentre, two-armed randomized controlled trial at three months. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three community-dwelling patients with Parkinson's disease and difficulties in daily activities, their primary caregivers and seven occupational therapists. INTERVENTION: Ten weeks of home-based occupational therapy according to the Dutch guidelines of occupational therapy in Parkinson's disease versus no occupational therapy in the control group. MAIN MEASURES: Process evaluation measured accrual, drop-out, intervention delivery and protocol adherence. Primary outcome measures of patients assessed daily functioning: Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Primary outcome for caregivers was caregiver burden: Zarit Burden Inventory. Participants' perspectives of the intervention were explored using questionnaires and in-depth interviews. RESULTS: Inclusion was 23% (43/189), drop-out 7% (3/43) and unblinding of assessors 33% (13/40). Full intervention protocol adherence was 74% (20/27), but only 60% (71/119) of baseline Canadian Occupational Performance Measure priorities were addressed in the intervention. The outcome measures revealed negligible to small effects in favour of the intervention group. Almost all patients and caregivers of the intervention group were satisfied with the results. They perceived: 'more grip on the situation' and used 'practical advices that make life easier'. Therapists were satisfied, but wished for a longer intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: The positive perceived impact of occupational therapy warrants a large-scale trial. Adaptations in instructions and training are needed to use the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as primary outcome measure.
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 | 0.050 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".