Paediatric occupational therapists' views on applying interoception in practice contexts.
Emma Clark, Ted Brown, Mong-Lin Yu and 2 others
Paediatric OTs in Australia report actively weaving interoception into practice but feeling underprepared, lacking OT-specific tools, and leaning on social media and peer learning.
They call it a 'missing piece' for children's regulation, while admitting the evidence base is thin.
Key findings
1Therapists described their interoception knowledge as still developing, often acquired through social media, peer learning, or self-directed study rather than formal training, with many expressing frustration at feeling underprepared for the work.
2Therapists consistently described interoception as a foundational 'missing piece' for children's self-regulation and occupational participation, while reporting that existing assessment tools and intervention resources were insufficient, poorly aligned with OT practice, or lacking an evidence base.
3Perceptions of interoception's effectiveness were grounded in clinical observation and anecdotal experience rather than formal outcome measures, and therapists expressed a strong desire for evidence-based, occupation-focused tools and structured training.
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
Predominantly regional Victoria, Australia; 63.6% in private practice; caseload heavily skewed toward neurodiversity (all 21 therapists who answered rated autism as a top group for interoception intervention), so findings may not transfer to therapists working in public health, hospitals, or with non-neurodiverse populations. Self-selected sample: recruitment via social media and snowballing, and every participant was already using interoception, so therapists who are sceptical, uninterested, or not yet using it are absent. Self-report only; no observational data, so accounts may be shaped by recall or a desire to sound competent. Perceptions of effectiveness were based on clinical impression and anecdote, not on outcome measures, so the study cannot tell you whether interoception interventions produce measurable change in children. Single qualitative study with 22 participants; findings are one group's perspective, not a generalisable estimate.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read therapists' positive descriptions of interoception as evidence that it works for children. This is a qualitative study of what 22 therapists in one Australian region think and do; their perceptions of effectiveness were based on clinical observation and anecdote, not outcome measures, and every participant was already using interoception, so sceptics and non-users are absent.
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 →