Randomized Controlled Trial of Occupational Performance Coaching for Adults With Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the receipt of occupational performance coaching (OPC) by adults living with multiple sclerosis (MS) improves participants' satisfaction with performance in daily activities (primary outcome); improves perceived performance in daily activities, resilience, autonomy, and participation; and reduces illness intrusiveness and effect of MS (secondary outcomes). DESIGN: Two-group randomized clinical trial with a waitlist control. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of adults with MS were recruited through a research registry. Eighty-three individuals were approached; 35 were assessed for eligibility and 31 were enrolled and 30 completed baseline assessment (Final sample size, N=30). Participants were English-speaking, were without serious cognitive impairment or severe depression, and were not receiving other coaching interventions. INTERVENTIONS: Six telephone sessions of OPC were delivered by a trained facilitator over 10 weeks. Initial sessions focused on goal setting, prioritization, and action planning. Subsequent sessions involved goal and action plan review, discussion of facilitators and barriers, and goal and plan refinement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was participants' satisfaction with performance in daily activities, as measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Secondary outcome measures included the COPM performance rating, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire, Adapted Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale, and MS Impact Scale. Measures were administered by a blinded assessor at baseline, 10 weeks, and 2 months. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention and waitlist control groups were equivalent on demographic and outcome measures at baseline. At 10 weeks, the intervention group had significantly higher COPM ratings for both satisfaction (P<.001) and performance (P=.002). No other outcomes were significantly different. For the intervention group, the benefits of OPC were maintained at 2 months. CONCLUSIONS: OPC led to improved satisfaction with performance and performance in daily activities. Future research with a larger sample is needed to determine other effects and who benefits most from OPC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".