OTSystematic ReviewJournal of renal care2026

Occupational Therapy Services Provided to Adults Diagnosed With Kidney Disease: A Scoping Review.

Jane Levison, Susan Brandis

PMID 42376957

WHAT IT FOUND

Across 23 studies, occupational therapy services for adults with kidney disease were mostly hospital-based and focused on fatigue, education, and daily tasks, but evidence was sparse and protocols lacking.

Key findings

01The review included 23 studies of occupational therapy for adults with kidney disease.

02Most reported service provision was hospital or renal unit based, with 65% in hospital or renal unit and 35% community or mixed.

03The most commonly reported occupational therapy roles were health symptom management, mainly fatigue, and education, while leisure received less attention.

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 review did not critically appraise or grade the included studies, so it cannot show how strong the evidence is. Only seven included papers were level 1 or level 2 evidence, so many findings rest on lower-level studies. 78% of included papers referenced patients in kidney failure grade 5, so the review says little about earlier grades of kidney disease. The search was limited to English articles and excluded grey literature, so some service reports may be missing. The review found few protocols for occupational therapy across service settings, so it does not provide a tested service model.

Declared interests

No funding was received, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. The review began as coursework for a Master of Occupational Therapy.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as proof that occupational therapy improves kidney disease outcomes. It is a scoping review that mapped reported services, not tested effectiveness, and only seven included papers were level 1 or level 2 evidence.

Read it on PubMed →