Primary care occupational therapist's methods of outcome evaluation: Do they align to value-based healthcare?

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
British Journal of Occupational Therapy Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1177/03080226251320185
Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Catherine Purcell
{"title":"Primary care occupational therapist's methods of outcome evaluation: Do they align to value-based healthcare?","authors":"Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Catherine Purcell","doi":"10.1177/03080226251320185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Occupational therapy roles are increasing across General Practice in primary care. The evidence base is growing; however, the best way to evaluate outcomes and the impact of practice in this setting remains unclear. Consideration for how methods used align to ambitions of value-based healthcare is also required. This study explored evaluation methods used by occupational therapists, providing services to General Practice in Wales within the context of value-based healthcare.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An online focus group was conducted with 13 members of a Welsh Primary Care Occupational Therapy network. Mixed methods were used and Mentimeter results and findings from group discussion were analysed through content and framework analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A multifaceted but inconsistent approach to evaluation was reported. Methods used, strengthened by professional core values, broadly aligned practice to shared ambitions of value-based healthcare. The use of validated patient rated scales were most commonly used to evaluate patient experience, whilst cost-effectiveness was least well considered.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Further research is required to understand occupational therapy evaluation in this setting to identify what is needed by stakeholders to determine impact and establish value. This could inform care at both an individual level and across populations if consistent data are collected at scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":49096,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":"88 6","pages":"362-378"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12103676/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226251320185","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Occupational therapy roles are increasing across General Practice in primary care. The evidence base is growing; however, the best way to evaluate outcomes and the impact of practice in this setting remains unclear. Consideration for how methods used align to ambitions of value-based healthcare is also required. This study explored evaluation methods used by occupational therapists, providing services to General Practice in Wales within the context of value-based healthcare.

Method: An online focus group was conducted with 13 members of a Welsh Primary Care Occupational Therapy network. Mixed methods were used and Mentimeter results and findings from group discussion were analysed through content and framework analysis.

Results: A multifaceted but inconsistent approach to evaluation was reported. Methods used, strengthened by professional core values, broadly aligned practice to shared ambitions of value-based healthcare. The use of validated patient rated scales were most commonly used to evaluate patient experience, whilst cost-effectiveness was least well considered.

Conclusion: Further research is required to understand occupational therapy evaluation in this setting to identify what is needed by stakeholders to determine impact and establish value. This could inform care at both an individual level and across populations if consistent data are collected at scale.

初级保健职业治疗师的结果评估方法:它们与基于价值的医疗保健相一致吗?
导言:在初级保健的全科实践中,职业治疗的作用越来越大。证据基础正在增长;然而,在这种情况下评估结果和实践影响的最佳方法仍不清楚。还需要考虑所使用的方法如何与基于价值的医疗保健的目标保持一致。本研究探讨了职业治疗师使用的评估方法,在基于价值的医疗保健的背景下为威尔士的全科医生提供服务。方法:对威尔士初级保健职业治疗网络的13名成员进行了在线焦点小组。采用混合方法,通过内容分析和框架分析对小组讨论的结果和发现进行分析。结果:报告了多方面但不一致的评估方法。所使用的方法,在专业核心价值观的加强下,使实践与基于价值的医疗保健的共同目标广泛一致。使用经过验证的患者评分量表最常用于评估患者体验,而成本效益最少被考虑。结论:需要进一步的研究来了解在这种情况下的职业治疗评估,以确定利益相关者需要什么来确定影响和建立价值。如果在规模上收集一致的数据,这可以为个人层面和人群层面的护理提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: British Journal of Occupational Therapy (BJOT) is the official journal of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists. Its purpose is to publish articles with international relevance that advance knowledge in research, practice, education, and management in occupational therapy. It is a monthly peer reviewed publication that disseminates evidence on the effectiveness, benefit, and value of occupational therapy so that occupational therapists, service users, and key stakeholders can make informed decisions. BJOT publishes research articles, reviews, practice analyses, opinion pieces, editorials, letters to the editor and book reviews. It also regularly publishes special issues on topics relevant to occupational therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信