Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
IntroductionOccupation‐based interventions use engagement in a person's daily activities to achieve change. There is growing research into the use of occupation‐based group interventions in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. It remains unclear whether occupation‐based groups offer comparable outcomes to occupation‐based interventions delivered individually; this research will precede a clinical trial aimed at comparing these two approaches for improving occupational performance outcomes. This study details the process of co‐designing the intervention. Partnering with clinicians and patients in the design of healthcare interventions can promote patient‐centred care, enhance uptake, and improve applicability and sustainability of the intervention to that setting.MethodsA modified nominal group technique (NGT) design was applied to facilitate two meetings and an electronic survey with an expert panel of clinicians and patients. Twelve participants (n = 4 occupational therapists, n = 1 registered nurse, n = 1 physiotherapist, n = 1 occupational therapy assistant, n = 1 occupational therapy manager, and n = 4 patients) were purposively recruited. A modified approach to the technique's four stages was used: silent generation, round robin, clarification, and voting. Consensus was set at >50%. Qualitative data from group discussions were analysed thematically.FindingsAll participants agreed the intervention should include patient‐centred, goal‐directed, practice of daily activities, including breakfast and lunch preparation, domestic tasks, and laundry. Other components that were agreed included where the groups could run, group size, eligibility criteria, and frequency. Key themes from clinicians included needing a goal‐directed intervention, focused on progressing towards hospital discharge; time and resource requirements were also discussed. Patients emphasised the importance of building social connections, opportunity to engage in meaningful activity, and the importance of linking participation to patient goals.ConclusionThrough collaboration with clinicians and patients, an occupation‐based group intervention considering the available evidence, alongside clinical, experiential, and contextual sources of knowledge was developed; this resulted in an evidence‐based, patient‐centred, and contextually relevant intervention.
IntroductionOccupation‐based interventions use engagement in a person's daily activities to achieve change. There is growing research into the use of occupation‐based group interventions in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. It remains unclear whether occupation‐based groups offer comparable outcomes to occupation‐based interventions delivered individually; this research will precede a clinical trial aimed at comparing these two approaches for improving occupational performance outcomes. This study details the process of co‐designing the intervention. Partnering with clinicians and patients in the design of healthcare interventions can promote patient‐centred care, enhance uptake, and improve applicability and sustainability of the intervention to that setting.MethodsA modified nominal group technique (NGT) design was applied to facilitate two meetings and an electronic survey with an expert panel of clinicians and patients. Twelve participants (n = 4 occupational therapists, n = 1 registered nurse, n = 1 physiotherapist, n = 1 occupational therapy assistant, n = 1 occupational therapy manager, and n = 4 patients) were purposively recruited. A modified approach to the technique's four stages was used: silent generation, round robin, clarification, and voting. Consensus was set at >50%. Qualitative data from group discussions were analysed thematically.FindingsAll participants agreed the intervention should include patient‐centred, goal‐directed, practice of daily activities, including breakfast and lunch preparation, domestic tasks, and laundry. Other components that were agreed included where the groups could run, group size, eligibility criteria, and frequency. Key themes from clinicians included needing a goal‐directed intervention, focused on progressing towards hospital discharge; time and resource requirements were also discussed. Patients emphasised the importance of building social connections, opportunity to engage in meaningful activity, and the importance of linking participation to patient goals.ConclusionThrough collaboration with clinicians and patients, an occupation‐based group intervention considering the available evidence, alongside clinical, experiential, and contextual sources of knowledge was developed; this resulted in an evidence‐based, patient‐centred, and contextually relevant intervention.
Occupation-based groups can be used to improve occupational performance outcomes in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. It remains unclear whether they offer comparable outcomes to occupation-based interventions delivered individually. This study aims to pilot an occupation-based group intervention and compare occupational performance, satisfaction, and goal attainment outcomes with usual care. Twenty-one participants (15 women, 6 men, aged 34–85) were allocated to control ( n = 11) and intervention ( n = 10) groups. The control group received usual care (individual occupation-based interventions), while the intervention group received usual care plus an occupation-based group intervention. The method used a pilot quasi-experimental pre- to post-intervention design with a nonequivalent control group. The primary outcome measures were the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS). No significant between-group differences were found; both groups reported statistically significant improvements with medium to large effect sizes. Pilot data suggests that occupation-based groups offered comparable outcomes to individual treatment; a larger sample size is required to draw conclusions on their impact. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( https://uat.anzctr.org.au/Default.aspx ) was accessed on November 20, 2023. Registration number: ACTRN12623001196639.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.