Evaluation of an inpatient occupation-based group program using a process evaluation framework.
Kaitlyn Spalding, Louise Gustafsson, Amelia Di Tommaso
PMID 35854625WHAT IT FOUND
Participants in a home-like inpatient rehabilitation group practised their own daily tasks.
They valued choice, confidence, connection to home and shared experience; outcomes improved at discharge and 90-day follow-up.
Key findings
01The group was delivered as planned for most participants, with average active time 66.57%, average frequency 5.97 sessions, and average 3.5 tasks per session.
02Qualitative analysis identified four main themes about how the experience affected change.
03Outcome measures improved at discharge and were maintained at 90-day follow-up, but outcomes were not significantly related to amount, frequency or number of tasks.
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.
What it does not show
Only 30 people took part, and there was no comparison group, so improvements may reflect usual recovery rather than the group. Participants came from one general rehabilitation ward with mixed diagnoses, so results may not apply to other settings or populations. Facilitators, family members and other stakeholders were not interviewed, so the evaluation may miss factors affecting implementation. The interview sample was 15 of 30 participants, chosen for range, not all participants. The principal investigator was an occupational therapist, which may have influenced interview interpretation, though team analysis was used.
Declared interests
The work was funded by the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Foundation. Professor Louise Gustafsson, a co-author, is Editor-in-Chief of the journal; she was blinded to peer review, and an Associate Editor handled the article.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that the group caused better outcomes. It was a small, uncontrolled process evaluation, and outcome improvements were not significantly related to dose factors.