Profiling the Research Activities of Canadian Occupational Therapy and Occupational Science Faculty Members.
Tal Jarus, Leanne L Leclair, Setareh Ghahari and 3 others
PMID 36658768WHAT IT FOUND
Canadian occupational therapy faculty reported studying participation, adults, and urban settings, mostly qualitatively.
Federal and provincial grants were the largest funding sources. This maps research activities, not patient outcomes.
Key findings
01The most commonly reported research area was participation, followed by work, self-care, and leisure.
02More respondents reported qualitative research than quantitative research.
03Federal and provincial government grants were the largest funding sources accessed by respondents.
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
Response rates varied across programs, from 43% to 100%. The survey was not designed to compare programs, genders, or research areas, so it cannot show which groups differ. The research-method categories came from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which describe quantitative approaches in more detail than qualitative approaches, so qualitative work may not be captured well. Eligibility was handled differently by universities; some sent the survey to everyone in the OT program, department, or school, while others sent it only to full-time faculty. The inclusion criteria for who was eligible to participate could have been clearer. Occupational science was not a primary focus, so the survey does not fully describe OS research. The amount of funding and whether respondents were principal investigators or co-investigators were not collected. There is no national OT practice data in Canada to compare research topics with the people OTs actually serve.
Declared interests
The authors declared no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication. The article names the Association of Canadian Occupational Therapy University Programs as funder.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat this as evidence about patient outcomes or effective occupational therapy interventions. It reports what faculty said they research, and the authors state there is no national practice data to compare research topics with service users.