Realist process evaluation of occupational performance coaching: protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A cluster randomised controlled trial, the Meaning, Agency and Nurturing Autonomy (MANA) study, is underway comparing the effects of occupational performance coaching (OPC) and usual care on the social participation, health and well-being of children with neurodisability and their caregivers. This protocol presents the realist process evaluation which is occurring in parallel with the trial to allow testing and further refinement of OPC programme theory, as represented in its logic model. The aim of this realist evaluation is to examine what works, for whom, in the implementation of OPC with caregivers of children with neurodisability (in particular, Māori and Pasifika) in current service delivery contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Guided by OPC programme theory and realist evaluation processes, mixed-methods data collected from the MANA study OPC group will be analysed to elucidate when OPC works (outcomes), for whom, how (mechanisms) and under what circumstances (contexts). This will culminate in the synthesis of Intervention-Actor Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations. Descriptive analyses will be reported for quantitative measures of treatment fidelity (OPC-Fidelity Measure), caregiver emotional response to OPC (Session Rating Scale) preintervention emotional state (Depression Stress and Anxiety Scale) and client outcomes (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure). Reflexive thematic analysis will be undertaken to analyse realist interviews with therapists who implemented OPC above and below fidelity thresholds and culturally focused interviews with clients of Māori or Pasifika ethnicity, informing understanding of the contexts influencing therapists' implementation of OPC with fidelity, and the mechanisms triggered within therapists or caregivers to elicit a response to the intervention. The MANA study trial outcomes will be reported separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee (20/STH/93). In all participating jurisdictions local area approval was obtained, involving a process of local Māori consultation. Results will be disseminated to all participants, and more broadly to clinicians and policy-makers through conference presentations and peer-reviewed journal publications, which will inform decision-making about resourcing and supporting effective delivery of OPC to optimise outcomes for children and caregivers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000519853.
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 | 0.192 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.021 |
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".