ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026
Group-based versus one-to-one occupational therapy to improve ADL ability in people with chronic conditions: a pilot and feasibility RCT of the Go:OT study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05775653 (Group-based [ADAPT] Versus One-to-one [Usual] Occupational Therapy for Improving Activities of Daily Living in People With Chronic Conditions), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Group-based [ADAPT] Versus One-to-one [Usual] Occupational Therapy for Improving Activities of Daily Living in People With Chronic Conditions: A Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study (The Go:OT Trial)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOccupational therapy interventions can improve the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) in individuals with chronic conditions. The group-based ADAPT program was developed as an alternative to usual one-to-one occupational therapy (UOT), aiming to enhance ADL ability through structured problem-solving processes and implementation of adaptational strategies. This pilot and feasibility study evaluated the feasibility of delivering ADAPT 3.0 in a municipal setting and informed the design of a future full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT).
methodsA two-armed pilot RCT was conducted in a Danish municipality, comparing outcomes of ADAPT 3.0 to UOT. Eligible clients (≥ 18 years, chronic conditions, decreased ADL ability) were randomised to either intervention or control group. Outcomes included recruitment and retention, trial participation, impact on staff, access to UOT documentation, completion of outcome measures, and fidelity to the ADAPT manual. Descriptive statistics, logbook notes, and predefined progression criteria guided the evaluation.
resultsTwelve clients and four ADAPT-trained occupational therapists participated. ADAPT 3.0 was delivered with high fidelity and dose. Most progression criteria were met, including access to UOT documentation and successful delivery of ADAPT 3.0. However, recruitment was slower than anticipated, and clients in the UOT group reported to receive limited trial-related information. Completion rates of follow-up evaluations were acceptable in the ADAPT group but lower in the UOT group. Minor structural and procedural challenges were identified.
conclusionThe study supports the feasibility of delivering ADAPT 3.0 in a municipal setting and progressing to a full-scale RCT. To ensure robust trial conduct, key refinements are needed in recruitment procedures, participant information for the UOT group, and clarity of outcome measures.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05775653.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.