The effect of an equine assisted therapy (EAT) programme on children’s occupational performance – a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Equine-assisted therapy (EAT) uses the horse and its environment to achieve therapeutic goals as designed by an allied health professional (Taylor, 2010). The benefits of these interventions affect areas such as motor skills (Bass et al., 2009; Silkwood-Sherer et al., 2012), sensory processing (Ward et al., 2013), learning, social interaction and socioemotional development (Bracher, 2000). It was felt that occupational therapists could offer valuable input in this area. This paper aims to investigate the impact of a specific six-week EAT programme on six participants’ occupational performance. Design/methodology/approach Mixed methods were used in this pilot study, consisting of a pre- and post-design with two follow-up periods. Participants were aged between 5 and10 years with a diagnosis of a visual impairment, and some had additional diagnoses. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was administered to parents pre-programme, post-programme and approximately six week after the programme ceased. Additional information from notes that contained children’s and parents’ reports was analysed thematically. Findings Five of the six children were rated as having clinically significant changes in their occupational performance. Analysis of parents’ and children’s reports on their experience of the programme showed the main themes to be: peer interaction, taking on new challenges, feelings towards EAT and change. Originality/value Although there are many practitioners of EAT in Ireland, there is little research, and none was found in relation to the role of occupational therapists within this context. These results indicate that EAT may be effective in assisting some children to reach a variety of goals. This pilot study not only suggests that EAT is worth further research but also begins to explore the role of occupational therapy in this form of intervention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".