Occupational Performance Coaching for Children With Neurodisability: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Occupational Performance Coaching (OPC) is a goal-oriented approach in which client agency takes precedence in goal selection, analysis, choice of action, and evaluation of success. The intended outcomes of OPC are improved occupational performance and participation in clients’ life situations. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of OPC. Purpose. This study protocol outlines a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of OPC compared to usual care with caregivers of children with neurodisability in improving child, caregiver, and family occupational performance. Method. A single-blind, 2-arm parallel-group, cluster RCT of OPC compared to usual care is planned. Therapists delivering the intervention (N = 14) are randomized to “OPC training” or “usual care” groups. The primary outcome is occupational performance improvement in caregiver (N = 84) identified goals. Implications. Findings will provide translational evidence of the effectiveness of OPC and clarify intervention processes. Areas of future OPC research and development will be indicated.
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 | 0.037 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.008 |
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".