Sexuality in the field of occupational therapy: A scoping review.
Louis-Pierre Auger, Billy Vinette, Laury Potvin and 2 others
Over 40% of research on sexuality in occupational therapy describes barriers practitioners face rather than what to do.
Of 136 studies, only two OT-specific assessment tools exist, and evidence for educational interventions is mixed.
Key findings
1The largest share of the 136 studies (57, or 41.9%) addresses factors that influence whether practitioners bring up sexuality with patients. Over half of those (31 of 57) point to a perceived lack of knowledge, skills, and training as the main barrier.
2The authors state that, to their knowledge, the OTSAF and the Occupational Performance Inventory of Sexuality and Intimacy (OPISI) are the only assessment tools developed by and for occupational therapists to focus explicitly on sexuality.
3Among 11 studies on educational interventions, 7 (63.6%) reported improved attitude and comfort in addressing sexuality, but 4 (36.4%) found inconclusive effects on knowledge. The review explicitly notes it did not aim to evaluate intervention effectiveness.
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
Only English and French studies were included, so work in other languages is absent. The authors note this may explain why some countries are under-represented. Data extraction was done by two reviewers, each handling roughly half the studies, and the authors acknowledge this makes the categorisation susceptible to their personal biases, despite a calibration exercise. Grey literature (dissertations, blogs, podcasts) was excluded, which the authors say may leave out relevant material. 21.3% of the included studies did not specify their research design, making it hard to judge the strength of the evidence they contribute. This is a scoping review: it maps what exists but does not appraise the quality of individual studies or synthesise effect sizes. The authors explicitly state they did not aim to evaluate intervention outcomes. The paper states 'six themes' were identified but then lists seven. The count is internally inconsistent.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 136 studies as evidence that sexuality is well-addressed in occupational therapy practice. Over 40% of them describe barriers practitioners face rather than effective solutions, the review did not evaluate whether any intervention actually works, and only two OT-specific assessment tools exist. The growth in publication numbers (40 in 2010-2019, 31 in 2020-2024) reflects increasing interest, not established practice.
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 →