Neurology and Cognitive Occupational Therapy Practice Across the Middle East and North Africa: An Exploratory Multicountry Cross-Sectional Survey.
Hamad AlHamad
PMID 42403035WHAT IT FOUND
Seven in ten occupational therapists across 13 MENA countries reported using neurodevelopmental treatment for adult neurology, an approach current stroke guidelines do not endorse, and nearly as many also reported motor-learning approaches.
Reported barriers were mainly organisational, not individual.
Key findings
01Neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT/Bobath) was the most commonly reported frame of reference, named by 71.2% of respondents, followed by the biomechanical approach (65.3%) and motor-control/motor-learning (63.6%).
0272.0% of respondents reported at least one challenge to using evidence-based practice, most often lack of organisational support (51.7%) and lack of protected time to search for evidence (48.3%).
03Respondents practising outside the GCC reported evidence-quality and confidence-related barriers far more often than GCC respondents: poor-quality evidence 54.1% versus 25.9%, low confidence in appraising research 37.8% versus 12.3%, and low confidence in implementing findings 35.1% versus 12.3%.
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
The 118 respondents are a convenience and snowball sample recruited through professional networks and social media, so they are not a regional average. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan supplied 68.6% of responses and seven countries supplied fewer than five each. Because the survey link circulated openly, the number of therapists who saw it is unknown and no response rate can be calculated. People already engaged with professional networks were more likely to take part (77.1% had attended a conference), so the barriers reported here are those of the more engaged, and less engaged therapists are likely missing. Everything reflects self-report about what therapists say they use, not observation of what they do. Reported use of a model or frame of reference may reflect training history or professional identity rather than day-to-day practice. The post hoc subgroup comparisons were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and several groups were very small, including 26 postgraduate-qualified respondents, 8 from Morocco and 5 from Iran and Turkey. The subregional and qualification patterns are exploratory signals, not established differences. The barrier questionnaire was written for this study, and its six items did not behave as a single scale (Cronbach alpha 0.40 to 0.48), so summing them into a total barrier score would be misleading. Translation and language equivalence across Arabic, English, French, Turkish and Farsi settings was not formally checked with a forward and back translation. The monthly income question also had inconsistently ordered response labels, so income was reported but not analysed further.
Declared interests
Funded by Kuwait University (grant ZN06/22). The author declares no competing interests. The paper does not state that the funder had any role in designing the study, analysing the data or writing it up.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 71.2% NDT figure as the share of treatment time these therapists spend on Bobath. The survey recorded what therapists report using, most of them also reported motor-learning approaches, and the authors say the number reflects widespread reported affiliation with NDT rather than observed practice.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →