MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898004397 · doi:10.1177/0308022618799944

Randomized controlled trial of occupational performance coaching for mothers of children with cerebral palsy

2018· article· en· W2898004397 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mina Ahmadi Kahjoogh, Dorothy Kessler, Seyed Ali Hosseini, Mehdi Rassafiani, Nazila Akbarfahimi, Hamid Reza Khankeh, Akbar Biglarian

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersUniversity of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences
KeywordsCoachingCerebral palsyOccupational therapyRandomized controlled trialMedicinePhysical therapyPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of occupational performance coaching in mothers of children with cerebral palsy. Method A randomized controlled trial was used. Thirty mothers of children with cerebral palsy were randomly assigned to an occupational performance coaching group or control group. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and Sherer General Self-efficacy Scale were measured before and after the study. Results Occupational performance coaching had significant effects on participants’ occupational performance and self-efficacy. In child-related goals, there was also a statistically significant difference between two groups ( p = 0.05). Conclusion The results indicated that occupational performance coaching could be an effective intervention to increase the self-efficacy of mothers and improve the occupational performance of children and mothers of children with cerebral palsy. This trial is registered at NCT02915926 at clinicaltrials.gov

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207