Acceptability and feasibility of online occupational performance coaching for parents of children with disabilities in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Occupational performance coaching is a collaborative, strengths-based approach used by occupational therapists working with children and families. This study evaluates the acceptability and feasibility of delivering an online occupational performance coaching programme for parents of children with disabilities in the United Kingdom. Method: Mixed-methods feasibility study. Eight UK-based families with children with disabilities participated in four to eight online coaching sessions. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used to measure changes in occupational performance. The Parenting Stress Index Fourth Edition (short form) was used to measure changes in parental stress. Six parents were interviewed, and four therapists participated in a focus group to explore their experiences of the programme. Results: = 0.01). Parents' average total stress decreased by 12.5 points with greatest reductions in the parental distress subscale. Therapist fidelity to intervention was relatively low. Conclusion: The coaching programme was acceptable for parents who responded well to the intervention with noted gains in occupational performance and satisfaction. Programme delivery was feasible for therapists though further training in occupational performance coaching is recommended.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".