Effectiveness of CO-OP Approach for Children With Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review.
Emmanuel Madieu, Sandrine Gagné-Trudel, Pierre Yves Therriault and 1 others
PMID 37312979WHAT IT FOUND
CO-OP improved children's daily activities and participation in all 19 studies that measured it, but effects on underlying motor skills were mixed.
Only 6 of 20 studies reported a quantified benefit, and most used low-quality designs.
Key findings
01All 19 studies that measured activities or participation reported improvement in the child's chosen daily tasks.
02Effects on body functions were mixed: 3 level III studies and 2 level IV studies with controls showed improvement, while 6 studies showed no improvement.
03Only 6 studies reported a quantified benefit, and the vast majority of included studies were level IV or V quality.
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
Only 3 of the 20 included studies reached level III quality; the rest were level IV or V, meaning most lacked a control procedure and the risk of bias is high. Only 6 studies reported a quantified benefit, so the size of the effect is unknown for most outcomes. The review was limited to English and French articles, so studies in other languages were not captured. NDD populations are heterogeneous, which makes the controlled designs needed for firm conclusions difficult to run. Few studies specifically targeted contextual factors (parent strategies, environmental changes), and those that did used qualitative or logbook methods rather than standardized measures.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the consistent improvement in daily activities as proof that CO-OP reliably works. The 19 studies showing this were mostly level IV or V quality, only 6 reported a quantified benefit, and the underlying motor-skill results were split between improvement and no change.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →