Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) in Parkinson’s: Randomized Trial Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. People with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) experience increasing disability due to progressive motor and non-motor symptoms. Comprehensive rehabilitation approaches are needed to maximize their daily functioning. CO-OP targets daily functioning and has established efficacy in populations with similar symptom profiles. Purpose. To explore the potential of CO-OP for PwPD, a feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. Methods. Consenting PwPD ( n = 20) were recruited to a parallel group, assessor masked RCT. Following baseline assessment, participants were randomized to CO-OP (20 sessions:10-weeks) or a waitlist control (WLC; 0 sessions: 10 weeks). Goal attainment, functional and cognitive status, quality of life, self-efficacy, transfer, and maintenance were measured. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis. Results. Effort ( M = 3.02/5) and enjoyment ( M = 3.15/5) ratings; homework completion ( M = 91%) and protocol adherence ( M = 82%) indicate that CO-OP is feasible. CO-OP was superior to the WLC on Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) performance ( p =<.001), COPM satisfaction ( p =<.001), and Performance Quality Rating Scale (PQRS; p =<.001) but not the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS; p = .123). Conclusions. Addressing a critical gap in Parkinson's disease management, findings suggest that CO-OP is implementable, feasible, and potentially beneficial for PwPD. Further research is warranted to further establish efficacy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".