Primary care occupational therapist's methods of outcome evaluation: Do they align to value-based healthcare?
Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Catherine Purcell
PMID 40421442WHAT IT FOUND
Primary care occupational therapists in Wales used varied evaluation methods, including patient stories and case examples, but validated outcome tools were inconsistent and cost was least considered.
Key findings
01AusTOM-OT was the most common tool cited, by 9 out of the 12 participants who responded, but there was no apparent consensus across other measures in use.
02Case studies were reported by half of respondents, and patient stories were the most popular method for showing patient experience.
03Cost-effectiveness was the least well-considered evaluation area, and some occupational therapists reported they do not consider costs.
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 study used one online focus group, so it captures the views of 13 occupational therapists in a Wales-wide network rather than all primary care occupational therapists. Not all participants contributed equally, and some questions were answered by 12 of 13 participants. The sample was limited to Wales and to services provided to adults, so it does not show how evaluation is done for children, young people, or other countries. The analysis began with the focus group questions, which may have narrowed the themes compared with a fully open qualitative approach.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication. No funding source is stated in the supplied text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that any evaluation method improves outcomes or demonstrates value. It reports what 13 occupational therapists said they use, not tested effects.