Occupational Therapists' Psychotherapy Competence: A Scoping Review of Secondary Data.
Andrea Mandzuk, Pamela Wener
PMID 39962793WHAT IT FOUND
Across 104 articles, the review points to supervision, further training, experience and learning from colleagues as the ways therapists build confidence, and finds no clear route to competence.
Entry-level training leaves therapists unsure, and those in their first five years need support.
Key findings
01The literature describes many separate ways occupational therapists pick up psychotherapy skills, but no agreed order or pathway for becoming competent, which the review links to therapists' uncertainty about their own ability.
02Occupational therapists describe hesitancy about delivering psychotherapy, tied to a lack of formal training, and some stay hesitant even after taking further education.
03Therapists who have worked with more clients are described as more likely to feel competent, and supervision was the most commonly recommended way to build and keep psychotherapy skills.
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
It is a second look at articles another review had already found: no new search was run, and the authors assumed the earlier review had captured all the relevant research. Nothing was assessed for quality, and half of the 104 articles were not research studies; the earlier review judged the underlying evidence to be poor. Many articles are old, the earliest from 1927 and two thirds from before 2000, so parts of this picture may not match current practice. The themes are counts of how many articles mention a topic. None of the articles tested whether supervision, education or experience actually improves a therapist's competence or a client's outcome. Both authors are occupational therapists with an interest in psychotherapy; they say they discussed this bias with people inside and outside the profession, and that the second author's role in the original review helped keep the meaning of the data intact.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and said they received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of the article.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the theme sizes as evidence that supervision or extra training works. This review counted how many articles discussed each topic. It did not measure whether any of them improve competence or client outcomes, and none of the articles it included was assessed for quality.
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 →