Acceptability and feasibility of online occupational performance coaching for parents of children with disabilities in the UK.

There was no control group, so the improvements in participation and satisfaction could have come from the extra attention, the passage of time, or parents simply wanting to report progress. Only eight families took part, which the authors say is too few for firm conclusions. The same therapists who delivered the coaching also scored the COPM with the parents, which could have pushed those scores upwards; other OPC trials used assessors who did not know which group families were in. Families volunteered through Twitter and university webpages and were highly educated and digitally confident, so these views will not represent UK families who lack devices, Wi-Fi or digital skills. Only six of the eight families returned the parenting stress questionnaires, and missing answers were filled in with the family's own average or the last known answer. Two parents questioned the wording of an item in one parenting stress subscale, and previous work suggests two of its subscales may not be valid for parents of autistic children. Coaching fell short of the intended standard in most rated sessions, which the authors say means the findings should be read with caution. All the work took place during Covid-19 restrictions, and some parents said they were especially grateful for help at that time; no follow-up was done after the coaching ended.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by a grant of £9943.86 from the Elizabeth Casson Trust, a charitable trust rather than a company selling the intervention.

Do not read the rises in performance and satisfaction scores as proof that online coaching works. There was no control group, the therapists who delivered the coaching also scored the outcome measure with the parents, only eight families took part, and most sessions did not meet the coaching standard the manual sets.