Professional Reasoning in Occupational Therapy: A Scoping Review.
Luis-Javier Márquez-Álvarez, José-Ignacio Calvo-Arenillas, Miguel-Ángel Talavera-Valverde and 1 others
PMID 31824234WHAT IT FOUND
Research on occupational therapists' professional reasoning grew steadily from 1982 to 2017, mostly in English, with qualitative studies predominating.
It maps how reasoning was studied, not whether any reasoning method improves patient care.
Key findings
01The review analysed 303 references, with 208 published in indexed journals and 280 written in English.
02Since 1982, publications increased, and 149 of 208 indexed journal articles were empirical.
03Qualitative articles were the largest methodological group, with 72 articles (48.3%), but the review did not assess study quality.
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 review did not assess the scientific quality of the included studies, so it cannot tell clinicians which reasoning studies are trustworthy. The detailed findings of the included papers were beyond the scope, so it maps topics and methods rather than summarising their results. Most publications were in English, so the picture may not represent professional reasoning in other language groups. Articles published from 2015 to 2017 were not included in the statistical comparisons of historical periods.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that any professional reasoning model improves patient care. It maps how occupational therapy reasoning research was published, and it did not assess the quality of the included studies.