Comparing the CO-OP ApproachTM to Usual Occupational Therapy for Adults with Executive Dysfunction Following Acquired Brain Injury: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impairments of executive function following acquired brain injury including stroke (ABI) contribute significantly to long-lasting everyday difficulties in life. Pilot work on the CO-OP ApproachTM (Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance Approach), a contextualized strategy training intervention, with ABI adults with executive dysfunction showed improved performance on untrained everyday life tasks and cognitive flexibility. Objective: Our objective was to determine the efficacy of the CO-OP Approach relative to usual occupational therapy (UOT) for community-dwelling adult survivors of ABI with executive dysfunction. Methods: Eighty-seven participants were randomized to receive CO-OP (n = 45) or UOT (n = 42) in their homes. All participants identified five personally meaningful, everyday life goals (using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)) and received up to 15 one-hour treatment sessions twice per week. Three goals were trained, and two were untrained. Interventions were provided by occupational therapists registered with their regulatory college. The CO-OP group was trained to apply a meta-cognitive strategy to three goals. The UOT group received therapy based on the clinicians’ (experienced in community settings) determination. Testers were masked to the participants’ group. Analysis at the primary outcome (Post-test, ~10 weeks following baseline) was on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Participants in the CO-OP group had a mean age of 57.5 years, a mean time post-ABI of 5.3 years, and were 57.8% men. Those in the usual OT group had a mean age of 54.7 years, a mean time post-ABI of 6.2 years, and were 69.0% men. The CO-OP group reported statistically significant higher improvements on COPM performance and satisfaction scores post-test for untrained and trained goals. However, these benefits were not retained at follow-up (three months post-baseline). Conclusions: The CO-OP ApproachTM shows promise for improving performance in everyday life goals for individuals with chronic ABI relative to usual community occupational therapy. Achieving retention of these benefits remains a challenge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".