Occupational Therapy Home Visits for Children with Disabilities: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to systematically review home-visit occupational therapy for children with disabilities. Methods: This study targeted the literature published in domestic and international databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, RISS, KISS, and the Yonsei University Library, from 2015 to 2025. The domestic keywords included “아동”, “장애”, “가정”, and “작업치료”, while international keywords were “disability”, “disorder”, “child”, “children”, “home program”, “home service”, “home-based”, “home visiting”, and “occupation”. Eight studies were selected based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guildeline, and analyzed using the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework. Results: Interventions were primarily applied to children with autism spectrum disorder and their families, particularly their mothers. Five types of intervention were identified, with eating and feeding coaching being the most common. The most frequently reported positive effects of the interventions were occupational performance and eating and feeding skills, including behavior, motor, sensory, and social skills. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Behavioral Pediatric Feeding Assessment Scale (BPFAS) were the most common assessment tools. Conclusion: This study confirmed that occupational therapy home visits have positive effects on children with disabilities, especially on various functional aspects, and may serve as a foundation for clinical practice and future policy development.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".