Coaching While Waiting for Autism Spectrum Disorder Assessment: A Pilot Feasibility Study for a Randomized Controlled Trial on Occupational Performance Coaching and Service Navigation.
Charmaine Bernie, Katrina Williams, Fiona Graham and 1 others
PMID 35488977WHAT IT FOUND
Coaching families while they wait for an autism assessment was feasible, with 75% retention.
Families in the coaching arms reported larger gains in goal performance and satisfaction than those in usual care, though the study was too small to prove effectiveness.
Key findings
01The study achieved 75% retention, meeting the pre-designated feasibility goal of 70-80%.
02In the coaching arms, 6 out of 8 participants moved 2 points or greater on average on goal performance and satisfaction scales, compared to 1 of 4 in usual care.
03Videoconference coaching was feasible, with no withdrawals in that arm and all participants able to use the technology.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was a pilot with a very small sample size (n=16), making it underpowered to detect true efficacy differences. Recruitment was very low (9% of eligible families), which may indicate acceptability issues or selection bias among those who did enroll. The usual-care group had the highest withdrawal rate, possibly because they received no direct intervention and only completed measures. The researcher collecting data was not blinded to arm allocation, which could introduce bias in outcome assessment. Service access varied widely among participants, which may have confounded the outcomes.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the University of Melbourne. No other conflicts of interest are declared in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the larger gains in the coaching arms as proof that OPC is superior to usual care. The study was a feasibility pilot with only 16 participants, and the differences were not statistically tested for efficacy. These findings support the design of a future larger trial, not a change in clinical practice based on proven effectiveness.