Randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed studies of OT efficacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sensory integration/processing isn't a valid diagnosis, was invented by OTs and rejected by medical professionals.

It's in the DSM. It's listed as a symptom, not a diagnosis. But it's there.

Where? It's not a symptom of ADHD, ASD, ID, or any of the other common developmental disorders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's in the DSM. It's listed as a symptom, not a diagnosis. But it's there.

Sure isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sensory integration/processing isn't a valid diagnosis, was invented by OTs and rejected by medical professionals.

It's in the DSM. It's listed as a symptom, not a diagnosis. But it's there.

Where? It's not a symptom of ADHD, ASD, ID, or any of the other common developmental disorders.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

B4, at least

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sensory integration/processing isn't a valid diagnosis, was invented by OTs and rejected by medical professionals.

People say this all the time on here trying to sound smart. Do you have any idea how the DSM is revised? By a bunch of "medical professionals" on committees voting in favor of the labels that will keep their grant revenues flowing. Just because a label doesn't have favor in that crowd doesn't mean it isn't a useful model for thinking about a child's strengths and weaknesses. Ask parents of kids diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome what I mean. Presto chango, it isn't a diagnosis anymore, either.

[Anonymous]

If you think semi-professionals know better than doctors, then have at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sensory integration/processing isn't a valid diagnosis, was invented by OTs and rejected by medical professionals.

People say this all the time on here trying to sound smart. Do you have any idea how the DSM is revised? By a bunch of "medical professionals" on committees voting in favor of the labels that will keep their grant revenues flowing. Just because a label doesn't have favor in that crowd doesn't mean it isn't a useful model for thinking about a child's strengths and weaknesses. Ask parents of kids diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome what I mean. Presto chango, it isn't a diagnosis anymore, either.

My kid has Asperger's syndrome and it isn't the same as SPD at all. Every Asperger's parent always knew that Asperger's was a type of autism. It's still a useful synonym for High Function Autism, or highly verbal autism, but we recognized the line between Asperger's and "regular" autism was fuzzy. And that's why it was taken out of the DSM. The line was too fuzzy for doctors to clearly distinguish where to draw it. And there was tons of research on where to draw that line, they just couldn't figure out where to put it. Different doctors drew it differently, but it didn't affect treatment anyway. If they wanted to keep the dollars flowing, they could have kept Asperger's in the book and continue to waste time trying to draw a line that doesn't matter much and probably doesn't exist. But researching actual treatment is a lot better use of money than researching fuzzy lines.

SPD is different. My kid also got diagnosed with SPD. Go to an OT with an ASD kid, and you'll probably get an SPD diagnosis. Sensory processing problems are a symptom of ASD, so of course they will see it, and want to treat it directly. That's the problem. An OT may tell you that the SPD is causing your kids ASD or ADHD or anxiety, and recommend a "sensory diet." But it didn't work for my kid and the research doesn't support the treatment. That's because they have it backwards. ASD/ADHD/Anxiety causes the sensory processing problems, not the other way around.

I have nothing against OTs. We still go to OT and it helps. But for other related problems, not the core symptoms that come with our diagnosis.

You can get research money to study sensory processing because it's a known issue. And there has been research in SPD and sensory diets specifically, but right now it just looks like a blind alley.

[Anonymous]

NP. I get that OT can seem squishy and woo-woo, and generally unmeasurable. Obviously, it's very individual. We had nonexistent results with one OT and a few years later, tried again with a new therapist and are having a great experience. Was it maturity or OT? Probably both. Do what works for you.

It seems a lot of the general backlash is around SPD. I've never had an OT try to diagnose anything (though I'm sure some do). It makes sense to me that different disciplines have their own terminology.

And if you're not in the DSM, it's hard to fund research; but you need research to get into the DSM. I also think that misogyny plays a part in why OT isn't more highly regarded, frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I am a school psychologist and when I looked into OT for my child I couldn't find any peer reviewed, quality research supporting most things OT's do. My son had fine motor issues and some "sensory issues". I wasn't surprised because he went to a play based preschool in California where he never has to pick up a pencil or crayon if he didn't want to do so (and he never did) and didn't have to wear shoes. So. I surprise when he turned 5 he couldn't write or even copy letters. People on this forum really seem to dislike Kumon but for him it worked wonders because he was required to trace and then write letters every day for 10 minutes. Within a few months he had excellent printing skills and could effortlessly write letters and then words using the correct formation (top to bottom, etc). My son had awful fine motor skills because he never used his hand for writing. His grip was strong from playing on monkey bars or making play-Doh but he hadn't used and coordinated those muscles for writing.

If your story is accurate, then your child really didn't need therapy--he needed exposure and repetition. My kid had exposure and repetition -- in abundance -- and still could not write. Unfortunately for him, OT didn't help either--he was eventually diagnosed with very severe dysgraphia, but it was the logical place to start.

Same here pp. My dc has had tons of repetition in writing and it didn't help. It's scary that the other poster is a school psychologist who clearly understands very little about dysgraphia but then I have encountered this type of thinking for years. Every single year of my dc's life, dc encounters a teacher or tutor who thinks the dysgraphia can be fixed with more writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I am a school psychologist and when I looked into OT for my child I couldn't find any peer reviewed, quality research supporting most things OT's do. My son had fine motor issues and some "sensory issues". I wasn't surprised because he went to a play based preschool in California where he never has to pick up a pencil or crayon if he didn't want to do so (and he never did) and didn't have to wear shoes. So. I surprise when he turned 5 he couldn't write or even copy letters. People on this forum really seem to dislike Kumon but for him it worked wonders because he was required to trace and then write letters every day for 10 minutes. Within a few months he had excellent printing skills and could effortlessly write letters and then words using the correct formation (top to bottom, etc). My son had awful fine motor skills because he never used his hand for writing. His grip was strong from playing on monkey bars or making play-Doh but he hadn't used and coordinated those muscles for writing.

If your story is accurate, then your child really didn't need therapy--he needed exposure and repetition. My kid had exposure and repetition -- in abundance -- and still could not write. Unfortunately for him, OT didn't help either--he was eventually diagnosed with very severe dysgraphia, but it was the logical place to start.

Same here pp. My dc has had tons of repetition in writing and it didn't help. It's scary that the other poster is a school psychologist who clearly understands very little about dysgraphia but then I have encountered this type of thinking for years. Every single year of my dc's life, dc encounters a teacher or tutor who thinks the dysgraphia can be fixed with more writing.

The difference between your child and hers, or mine is that yours has a clear disorder, hers odd not. Mine was very delayed in writing and had no interest in trying till after 5 despite many tries. Once he took to it, with much practice and repetition he now has good handwriting in cursive and print. For some its as simple as Kumon and other workbooks, for other kids its not so simple. I don't know how a parent didn't know a child wasn't writing by age 5. Most would work with or offer crayons or other basics at home. My child probably didn't need OT but the developmental ped and OT pushed it on us and OT was nice, child enjoyed it, insurance covered it, so why not?

[Anonymous]

I agree that there isn't "perfect' research out there. But my daughter thrived in OT. She has low muscle tone, and having one-on-one time with an adult focused only on her (without her twin) who had fun things for her to do (that secretly improved her muscle tone and core strength) was fabulous for her. Again, insurance covered much of the cost and we were able to rearrange our schedules to attend.

OT certainly didn't hurt her, and though maturity could have helped many of her issues, there was no guarantee. It worked for us. Why not try it and see how it goes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand why you're asking this question.

I based my decision to start and continue with OT on a basic piece of knowledge that does not really require randomized controlled trials: physical skills can be taught, and kids respond best to good teachers.

My son pretty clearly had some physical skills that he needed to learn -- balance, climbing, proprioception, basic fine motor stuff. And it was pretty clear that OT taught him those skills.

The other stuff that's harder to see results on, I was more skeptical about .

This. OT provided clear and consistent instruction on skills that my child needed to develop. I know that he would not have received the same quality/ focused instruction in any school setting. And it worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sensory integration/processing isn't a valid diagnosis, was invented by OTs and rejected by medical professionals.

It's in the DSM. It's listed as a symptom, not a diagnosis. But it's there.

Where? It's not a symptom of ADHD, ASD, ID, or any of the other common developmental disorders.

It is one of the possible criteria for an ASD diagnosis. You need two of four. Sensory issues was one of the ones my kid had for ASD diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Sensory issues are not the same thing as Sensory Integration Disorder.

[Anonymous]

We did it and it was great for our kid. I sat quiet as a mouse and watched the OT. I learned a lot about how to effectively communicate with my child. Big picture - kid was able to develop his fine motor/hand grip. Stopped switching hands when drawing a horizontal line. And kid was super chill afterwards. 20/20 hindesight - 100 percent clear to me that activities that required bilateral coordination and focus were challenging and soothing for my kid. Child was simply not getting what he needed out of a very active preschool and normal playground activities. We graduated from it and eventually took gymnastic classes for a few years - eg cheap OT. It has been very helpful. Was it a cure - nope. We eventually figured out he has adhd. Did it help us start to crack the code and figure out his individual needs and what activities helped prime him for success at home and at school - yes. Did it start the perhaps life long process of learning how our communication style needed a healthy reboot to be effective parents? Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sensory integration/processing isn't a valid diagnosis, was invented by OTs and rejected by medical professionals.

People say this all the time on here trying to sound smart. Do you have any idea how the DSM is revised? By a bunch of "medical professionals" on committees voting in favor of the labels that will keep their grant revenues flowing. Just because a label doesn't have favor in that crowd doesn't mean it isn't a useful model for thinking about a child's strengths and weaknesses. Ask parents of kids diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome what I mean. Presto chango, it isn't a diagnosis anymore, either.

They review the strength of the EVIDENCE based on research conducted since the last update. It's not just about "labels."

Grow up, there's a lot more in there than just autism--the diagnosis your kid obviously got and you're still bitter about it.