Occupational therapists working in primary contact roles were pushed by the biomedical culture of the setting. Despite this, there was still a pull towards an occupational perspective. This research provides an initial exploration of primary contact clinics, and highlighted the added bonus of an occupational perspective. The findings present a timely opportunity for occupational therapists to critically reflect on practice in PCOTH clinics.

Introduction: There have been calls for the occupational therapy profession to realign with its values around occupation. However, the profession faces challenges in practice areas that have historically been underpinned by a biomechanical approach, such as hand therapy. The aim of this scoping review was to describe what is known about an occupational perspective in the hand therapy literature. Method: This scoping review utilised a recognised five-step approach. A search was conducted in four databases for papers published between 2005 and 2016. Numerical and thematic analyses were employed, using the Canadian Practice Process Framework as a theoretical framework. Results: Fifty papers were included in the scoping review. Six themes were identified: the centrality of occupation; inconsistencies in terminology; where in the occupational therapy process?; informal discussion as a key occupational strategy; occupational therapists' expectations of patients; and a bottom-up approach focusing on biomechanical strategies to implementing the plan. Conclusion: Whilst there has been some integration of an occupational perspective into hand therapy literature, there are still challenges. Inconsistent terminology, the lack of an occupational perspective throughout the occupational therapy process and a bottom-up approach to interventions all demonstrate the continuing tensions between the biomechanical approach and an occupational perspective.

Background: Our 2012 survey of providers described legacy services offered at children's hospitals nationwide. Since then, the science related to legacy interventions has advanced, resulting in increased recognition of the importance of legacy services. Yet, legacy interventions offered by children's hospitals have not been recently described. Objective: To describe current legacy services offered by children's hospitals in the United States and compare with our previous results. Design: Descriptive cross-sectional design. Setting/Subjects: Participants included providers (N = 54) from teaching children's hospitals in the United States. Measurements: Electronic REDCap survey.Results: Similar to our prior research, 100% of respondents reported that their hospital offers legacy activities with 98% providing such services as a standard of care. Notable increased numbers of children are participating in legacy interventions compared with the previous study, now with 40% (compared with 9.5% previously) of participants reporting >50 children per year. Patients being offered legacy activities include neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients, those with life-threatening traumatic injuries, those on life support for extended periods of time, and those referred to hospice. Although not statistically significant, the percentage of hospitals offering legacy-making to children with cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and life-threatening illnesses is slightly increased from the prior time point. Conclusions: Children across developmental stages and illness contexts and their families can benefit from both the memories generated through the process of legacy services and the subsequent tangible products. Providers should continue to offer legacy opportunities to seriously ill children and their families across a wide array of settings and illness contexts.

Background When a child is given a diagnosis of cancer, the impact reverberates through the family unit. Siblings, in particular, experience an accumulation of distress. Siblings of children with cancer can experience both short- and long-term difficulties in psychosocial and physical functioning, and professional bodies have called for interventions targeted at their needs. Objective The aim of this study was to describe outcomes, core components, and general characteristics of effective interventions intended to support sibling well-being and psychosocial health in pediatric oncology. Methods MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched in September 2019 and July 2020. Studies were included if they focused on interventions for siblings or family in pediatric cancer, had quantitative data to describe the effect or impact of the intervention, and were published in English. Included studies underwent quality appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis. Results Twenty articles fit inclusion criteria. Most interventions focused on 6- to 18-year-old siblings within a group setting. Most were theory based. Group format with multiple sessions was the most common approach. The most frequently assessed outcomes were depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and health-related quality of life. Conclusions Understanding outcomes, core components, and characteristics of effective interventions is important to translate sibling-support interventions into standard practice. Such considerations are important in delivering equitable family-centered care to siblings of children with cancer. Implications for Practice As institutions create mechanisms to support siblings, it may be important to target high-risk siblings initially, partner with community resources, attend to underrecognized populations of siblings, and more fully incorporate family into sibling support.

No abstract