Cargando…

A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review

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 s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McColl, Mary Ann, Denis, Celine Boyer, Douglas, Kate-Lin, Gilmour, Justin, Haveman, Nicole, Petersen, Meaghan, Presswell, Brittany, Law, Mary
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9923202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36650928
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00084174221142177
_version_ 1784887687265648640
author McColl, Mary Ann
Denis, Celine Boyer
Douglas, Kate-Lin
Gilmour, Justin
Haveman, Nicole
Petersen, Meaghan
Presswell, Brittany
Law, Mary
author_facet McColl, Mary Ann
Denis, Celine Boyer
Douglas, Kate-Lin
Gilmour, Justin
Haveman, Nicole
Petersen, Meaghan
Presswell, Brittany
Law, Mary
author_sort McColl, Mary Ann
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9923202
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99232022023-02-14 A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review McColl, Mary Ann Denis, Celine Boyer Douglas, Kate-Lin Gilmour, Justin Haveman, Nicole Petersen, Meaghan Presswell, Brittany Law, Mary Can J Occup Ther Original Articles / Articles originaux 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. SAGE Publications 2023-01-17 2023-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9923202/ /pubmed/36650928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00084174221142177 Text en © CAOT 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles / Articles originaux
McColl, Mary Ann
Denis, Celine Boyer
Douglas, Kate-Lin
Gilmour, Justin
Haveman, Nicole
Petersen, Meaghan
Presswell, Brittany
Law, Mary
A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review
title A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review
title_full A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review
title_fullStr A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review
title_full_unstemmed A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review
title_short A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review
title_sort clinically significant difference on the copm: a review
topic Original Articles / Articles originaux
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9923202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36650928
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00084174221142177
work_keys_str_mv AT mccollmaryann aclinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT deniscelineboyer aclinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT douglaskatelin aclinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT gilmourjustin aclinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT havemannicole aclinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT petersenmeaghan aclinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT presswellbrittany aclinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT lawmary aclinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT mccollmaryann clinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT deniscelineboyer clinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT douglaskatelin clinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT gilmourjustin clinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT havemannicole clinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT petersenmeaghan clinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT presswellbrittany clinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview
AT lawmary clinicallysignificantdifferenceonthecopmareview