A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION
Mary Ann McColl, Celine Boyer Denis, Kate-Lin Douglas, Justin Gilmour, Nicole Haveman, Meaghan Petersen, Brittany Presswell, Mary Law
{"title":"A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review.","authors":"Mary Ann McColl, Celine Boyer Denis, Kate-Lin Douglas, Justin Gilmour, Nicole Haveman, Meaghan Petersen, Brittany Presswell, Mary Law","doi":"10.1177/00084174221142177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assists occupational therapists to identify occupational performance problems using a client-centred approach. Since its first publication in 1991, there has been abundant evidence of the ability of the COPM to detect a <i>statistically</i> significant difference as an outcome measure. There has also been a tacit understanding that a difference of 2 points from pre-test to post-test on either Performance or Satisfaction COPM score represents a clinically significant difference. There is however, some confusion about the origins of this claim. <b>Purpose.</b> To ascertain empirical evidence for the claim that a clinically significant difference is a change score ≥2 points. <b>Method.</b> We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (1991-2020) for intervention studies using the COPM as an outcome measure and examined intervention type and change scores. <b>Findings.</b> One hundred studies were identified. The COPM was used to assess effectiveness of eight types of occupational therapy interventions. The common belief, however, was not empirically supported that clinical significance can be asserted on the basis of a two-point change in COPM scores. <b>Implications.</b> Further research is needed to test alternative approaches to asserting clinical significance or a minimal clinically important difference.</p>","PeriodicalId":49097,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy-Revue Canadienne D Ergotherapie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2d/be/10.1177_00084174221142177.PMC9923202.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy-Revue Canadienne D Ergotherapie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00084174221142177","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assists occupational therapists to identify occupational performance problems using a client-centred approach. Since its first publication in 1991, there has been abundant evidence of the ability of the COPM to detect a statistically significant difference as an outcome measure. There has also been a tacit understanding that a difference of 2 points from pre-test to post-test on either Performance or Satisfaction COPM score represents a clinically significant difference. There is however, some confusion about the origins of this claim. Purpose. To ascertain empirical evidence for the claim that a clinically significant difference is a change score ≥2 points. Method. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (1991-2020) for intervention studies using the COPM as an outcome measure and examined intervention type and change scores. Findings. One hundred studies were identified. The COPM was used to assess effectiveness of eight types of occupational therapy interventions. The common belief, however, was not empirically supported that clinical significance can be asserted on the basis of a two-point change in COPM scores. Implications. Further research is needed to test alternative approaches to asserting clinical significance or a minimal clinically important difference.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

COPM 的临床显著差异:综述。
背景。加拿大职业表现测量法(COPM)采用以客户为中心的方法,帮助职业治疗师识别职业表现问题。自 1991 年首次发布以来,已有大量证据表明,作为一种结果测量方法,COPM 能够检测出具有统计学意义的差异。此外,人们还达成了一种默契,即 COPM 的表现或满意度得分从测试前到测试后相差 2 分,即表示存在临床显著差异。然而,人们对这一说法的起源存在一些困惑。目的。确定有临床意义的差异是指分数变化≥2 分这一说法的实证证据。方法。我们对同行评议文献(1991-2020 年)中使用 COPM 作为结果测量指标的干预研究进行了范围审查,并检查了干预类型和变化分数。结果确定了 100 项研究。COPM 被用于评估八种职业治疗干预措施的有效性。然而,人们普遍认为,根据 COPM 分数的两分变化就能断定其临床意义,但这一观点并未得到经验支持。影响。需要进一步研究测试其他方法,以确定临床意义或最小临床重要性差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy was first published in September 1933. Since that time, it has fostered advancement and growth in occupational therapy scholarship. The mission of the journal is to provide a forum for leading-edge occupational therapy scholarship that advances theory, practice, research, and policy. The vision is to be a high-quality scholarly journal that is at the forefront of the science of occupational therapy and a destination journal for the top scholars in the field, globally.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信