Improving Research Engagement in Occupational Therapy: Results of an International Consultation.
Claudia von Zweck, Ritchard Ledgerd, World Federation Of Occupational Therapists
PMID 42682713WHAT IT FOUND
This is a workforce consultation, not a clinical trial. 39 of 100 occupational therapy national organisations reported that therapists value research but lack time, funding, and mentorship to do it, with low- and middle-income countries facing significantly greater barriers.
Key findings
01Occupational therapists across all income levels rated their value for research at a moderately high level, but rated confidence in research appraisal skills, confidence in research, and the opportunity to influence change through research at only medium levels, which the authors interpret as less likely to stimulate engagement.
02Low- and middle-income countries reported significantly lower confidence in research knowledge, less access to publication support, and less access to relevant research evidence and financial resources compared with high-income countries.
03The most frequently identified weaknesses were staff shortages and competing clinical priorities leaving no time for research, and funding that is more often allocated to biomedical research than to occupational therapy-specific studies.
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 39 of 100 member organisations completed the survey, and high-income countries were overrepresented (50% of high-income organisations responded versus 30% of low- and middle-income organisations). The survey was offered only in English, and English was not the primary language for a number of respondents, which may have skewed responses. The SWOT analysis was a single 45-minute session at one meeting; not all member organisations sent a representative, and the findings reflect what delegates chose to share in that context. The results are self-reported perceptions of national organisation representatives, not measured outcomes of any intervention. The study is a consultation and needs assessment, not a test of whether any recommended strategy actually improves research engagement.
Declared interests
Funding for publication was provided by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists, which is also the body that conducted the consultation. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the multi-stakeholder recommendations in this paper as evidence that any of them works. The study is a consultation that asks occupational therapists what they think would help; it does not test whether providing mentorship, funding, or regulatory requirements actually increases research output or improves patient care. The recommendations are proposals, not proven interventions.