Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) in Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance (CO-OP) is a client-centered treatment approach that was developed in the 1990s by occupational therapists. Purpose: Exploring current evidence about the effectiveness of CO-OP on children with cerebral palsy (CP). Method: Major electronic databases were searched. A narrative synthesis of current literature and meta-analyses on randomized control trials (RCTs) were conducted on changes in occupational performance. Findings: Seven studies with 103 participants were included. Four studies were RCTs with moderate levels of evidence, and three studies had single-subject designs. Although beneficial effects of CO-OP on goal achievement and transferring learned skills were reported, meta-analyses showed that CO-OP had no significant effect on the performance (WMD = 1.52, 95% CI = −1.58 to 4.63, P = .33) and satisfaction domains (WMD = 1.71, 95% CI = −1.14 to 4.57, P = .24) of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure scores compared to alternative interventions. Implications: CO-OP improves occupational performance but not more than alternative interventions. Results are inconclusive due to small sample sizes and heterogeneity of alternative interventions and participants. Therefore, research with a larger number of participants with sound RCT methods is needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".