Volume 22, Issue 1 (2025)
ioh 2025, 22(1): 308-325 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.USWR.REC.1401.061
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hamidikhah M, Abdi K, Khanjani M S, Latifian M, Jalili N. exploration the obstacles of using standardized assessment of outcome in occupational therapy services: a qualitative study. ioh 2025; 22 (1) : 18
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3607-en.html
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3607-en.html
Associate Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Management, Pediatric Neurorehabilitation Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran. , k55abdi@yahoo.com
Abstract: (542 Views)
Introduction: Paying attention to evidence-based approaches and the use of standard evaluations of results in occupational therapy services, in addition to guiding services in the direction of quality improvement and ensuring its optimality, is also very effective on the policies and macro plans of the health service system. Therefore, the current research was conducted with the aim of analyzing the obstacles of using standard evaluations of results in occupational therapy services.
Methods: This study was conducted using a qualitative method of content analysis, and the participants were selected from among the occupational therapists working in Hamadan city, through targeted sampling, and 20 of them were interviewed. The main method of data collection was semi-structured interviews with open questions, and the data were analyzed by inductive qualitative content analysis. The validity and reliability of the present study was based on the four axes of believability, transferability, verifiability and reliability.
Results: Data analysis resulted in the identification of 974 primary codes, 23 subcategories and 5 main categories including access and use of tools, personal and professional characteristics of the therapist, management principles and priorities governing the clinic, patient characteristics and the nature of the field of occupational therapy, which are considered as obstacles.
Conclusion: The results of this study can help to remove these obstacles and lead to taking effective steps to improve the quality of occupational therapy services as well as to improve the policies and plans of the educational system of therapists that shape the attitude, knowledge and skills they need.
Methods: This study was conducted using a qualitative method of content analysis, and the participants were selected from among the occupational therapists working in Hamadan city, through targeted sampling, and 20 of them were interviewed. The main method of data collection was semi-structured interviews with open questions, and the data were analyzed by inductive qualitative content analysis. The validity and reliability of the present study was based on the four axes of believability, transferability, verifiability and reliability.
Results: Data analysis resulted in the identification of 974 primary codes, 23 subcategories and 5 main categories including access and use of tools, personal and professional characteristics of the therapist, management principles and priorities governing the clinic, patient characteristics and the nature of the field of occupational therapy, which are considered as obstacles.
Conclusion: The results of this study can help to remove these obstacles and lead to taking effective steps to improve the quality of occupational therapy services as well as to improve the policies and plans of the educational system of therapists that shape the attitude, knowledge and skills they need.
Article number: 18
Keywords: standard assessment of results, rehabilitation, occupational therapy, barriers, challenges, qualitative content analysis
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Qualitative and quantitative studies
Received: 2024/03/20 | Accepted: 2025/07/20 | Published: 2025/03/30
Received: 2024/03/20 | Accepted: 2025/07/20 | Published: 2025/03/30
References
1. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. The Milbank memorial fund quarterly. 1966;44(3):166-206. [DOI:10.2307/3348969]
2. Wade DT. Outcome measures for clinical rehabilitation trials: impairment, function, quality of life, or value? American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation. 2003;82(10):S26-S31. [DOI:10.1097/01.PHM.0000086996.89383.A1] [PMID]
3. Barnes MP, Ward AB. Textbook of rehabilitation medicine. (No Title). 2000.
4. Higgins JP. green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version. 2011;5(0):3.
5. Korner‐Bitensky N, Barrett‐Bernstein S, Bibas G, Poulin V. National survey of Canadian occupational therapists' assessment and treatment of cognitive impairment post‐stroke. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2011 Aug;58(4):241-50. [DOI:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2011.00943.x] [PMID]
6. Rochette A, Korner-Bitensky N, Desrosiers J. Actual vs best practice for families post-stroke according to three rehabilitation disciplines. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. 2007 Sep 1;39(7):513-9. [DOI:10.2340/16501977-0082] [PMID]
7. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. BMJ quality & safety. 2005 Feb 1;14(1):26-33. [DOI:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155] [PMID] []
8. Colquhoun HL, Islam R, Sullivan KJ, Sandercock J, Steinwender S, Grimshaw JM. Behaviour change domains likely to influence occupational therapist use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occupational Therapy International. 2020;2020(1):3549835. [DOI:10.1155/2020/3549835] [PMID] []
9. Trauer T, Gill L, Pedwell G, Slattery P. Routine outcome measurement in public mental health-what do clinicians think? Australian Health Review. 2006;30(2):144-7. [DOI:10.1071/AH060144] [PMID]
10. Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC health services research. 2012;12(1):1-9. [DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-12-96] [PMID] []
11. Colquhoun H, Letts L, Law M, MacDermid J, Edwards M. Feasibility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for routine use. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2010;73(2):48-54. [DOI:10.4276/030802210X12658062793726]
12. Stapleton T, McBrearty C. Use of standardised assessments and outcome measures among a sample of Irish occupational therapists working with adults with physical disabilities. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2009;72(2):55-64. [DOI:10.1177/030802260907200203]
13. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today. 2004;24(2):105-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001] [PMID]
14. Belazi D, Goldfarb NI, He H. Measuring health-related quality of life in the clinical setting. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes Research. 2002;2(2):109-17. [DOI:10.1586/14737167.2.2.109] [PMID]
15. Bowman J. Challenges to measuring outcomes in occupational therapy: a qualitative focus group study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2006;69(10):464-72. [DOI:10.1177/030802260606901005]
16. Jaeger Pedersen T, Kaae Kristensen H. A critical discourse analysis of the attitudes of occupational therapists and physiotherapists towards the systematic use of standardised outcome measurement. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2016;38(16):1592-602. [DOI:10.3109/09638288.2015.1107630] [PMID]
17. Kay TM, Myers AM, Huijbregts MP. FEATURE ARTICLES-how far have we come since 1992? A comparative survey of physiotherapists' use of outcome measures. Physiotherapy Canada. 2001;53(4):268-75.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
