OTQualitativeAustralian occupational therapy journal2022

Australian occupational therapists' perspectives of consumers authentically contributing to student learning during practice placements: 'It just makes sense!' but 'we need a process'.

Thomas Bevitt, Stephen Isbel, Robert B Pereira and 1 others

PMID 36372902

WHAT IT FOUND

Experienced Australian OT supervisors see consumer feedback as valuable but fear students lack the skill to process it safely.

They want a structured, educator-controlled process to manage the time burden and the shift in power away from the supervisor.

Key findings

01Supervisors worried students lack the feedback literacy to interpret consumer critiques, expecting defensive reactions similar to how they handle educator feedback.

02Respondents insisted on an educator-controlled process to manage time pressures and ensure safety, rather than allowing direct student-consumer feedback exchanges.

03Supervisors feared that shifting control to consumers could diminish their professional authority and create conflicting assessments of student performance.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study did not include any consumers or students, so it reflects only the supervisors' assumptions about their capabilities. Participants were predominantly experienced supervisors from major cities, limiting generalisability to novice supervisors or rural contexts. The questionnaire was based on the older SPEF-R form, not the current SPEF-R2. The authors are academics who may share the same professional culture as the respondents.

Declared interests

One author is a member of the journal's editorial board. No other conflicts declared.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret these findings as evidence that consumer feedback is unsafe or ineffective. The paper reports supervisors' perceptions and fears about the process, not actual outcomes of student learning or consumer experiences.

Read it on PubMed →