The role of occupational therapists in acute mental health inpatient settings: A systematic scoping review.
Adele Adelle, Kris Bedford, Sabrina McMahon and 3 others
PMID 40495376WHAT IT FOUND
Occupational therapy interventions in acute mental health inpatient units are associated with improved engagement, reduced distress, and less reliance on restrictive practices like seclusion.
Evidence is limited to small, non-randomised studies, so these findings describe potential roles rather than proven effects.
Key findings
01Occupational therapy interventions, particularly sensory modulation, are associated with reduced use of restrictive practices such as seclusion and physical restraint.
02Activity engagement and graded task analysis are linked to improved functional capacity and reduced psychiatric symptoms in inpatient settings.
03Consumers value occupational therapy for providing choice, normality, and a therapeutic environment distinct from the restrictive ward.
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 three electronic databases were searched, which may have limited the extensiveness of the evidence base. The review focused solely on interventions designed or delivered by occupational therapists, excluding broader roles like assessments and discharge planning. Most included studies had small sample sizes, were single-site, or used non-randomised designs, limiting external validity. Only four studies were conducted in Australia, which may impact the applicability of findings to the Australian context. No randomised controlled trials were identified, only one quasi-experimental study, meaning causal effects cannot be strongly established.
Declared interests
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret these findings as proof that occupational therapy interventions cause reduced restrictive practices or improved function. The evidence comes from small, non-randomised studies and qualitative reports, which describe associations and consumer experiences rather than established efficacy.