Effectiveness of CO-OP Approach for Children With Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of the Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) approach for children with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). Data Sources: Selected articles published between January 2001 and September 2020 and listed in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO on the EBSCO platform, or found searching with Scopus, Google Scholar, OTseekern Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Turning Research into Practice, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. An update was performed in March 2022. Study Selection: Eligibility criteria included studies that assessed the effectiveness of the CO-OP approach on children (0-18 years) with NDDs. Unpublished results were excluded, as well as research published in a language other than English or French. Data Selection: The first 2 authors independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full texts. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved by consensus. Included studies were quality appraised using the PEDro-P scale or using the risk of bias scale in N-of-1 trials (RoBiNT) according to experimental design. Data Synthesis: Results were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Eighteen studies were initially included, with 2 additional studies added in the update. Three reached evidence level III (15%), 10 reached level IV (70%), and 5 reached level V (15%). All data collected on the activity-participation domain showed a significant improvement. Group therapy sessions show promising results for the improvement of activities or participation, as well as psychosocial dimensions such as self-esteem. Conclusions: The scientific evidence analyzed shows that the CO-OP approach has a positive effect on children with NDDs, particularly in regard to their activities and participation. Future experimental studies should be designed in ways that allow determining effect sizes. Group therapy sessions appear relevant but require further research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".