Experiences and Perceptions of Interprofessional Collaboration Among Spanish Optometrists and Occupational Therapists: A Cross-Sectional Study.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
María José López-de-la-Fuente, Víctor Berdejo, Laura Gonzalo-Ciria, Carmen Bilbao, Carmen López-de-la-Fuente
{"title":"Experiences and Perceptions of Interprofessional Collaboration Among Spanish Optometrists and Occupational Therapists: A Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"María José López-de-la-Fuente, Víctor Berdejo, Laura Gonzalo-Ciria, Carmen Bilbao, Carmen López-de-la-Fuente","doi":"10.1155/oti/7088426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) between optometrists and occupational therapists is key to optimising care for people with visual and functional difficulties. This study examines the experiences and perceptions of IPC among both disciplines in Spain, identifies factors shaping collaboration and compares actual collaborative practice with perceived IPC priorities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey. Participants, 138 optometrists and 148 occupational therapists, were categorised into two groups: those with prior collaborative experience (G1 = 92) and those without (G2 = 194). The survey included sociodemographic data, practice fields and perceptions of IPC. Drawing on D'Amour's model, the dimensions of shared goals and vision, internalisation, formalisation and governance-and their related indicators-were analysed. Quantitative data were examined using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Open-ended responses were analysed descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 32.2% of participants reported prior IPC experience, and collaboration was more frequent in paediatric and private settings. Many G2 professionals indicated serving clients with low vision or acquired brain injury without collaborating, highlighting missed opportunities. G1 participants reported a positive impact on practice and professional learning and scored highly in internalisation, indicating trust and mutual understanding. Nevertheless, gaps persisted in shared goals, formalisation and governance. Occupational therapists reported a more client-centred approach than optometrists and perceived some role-boundary barriers. Limited role awareness and uncertainty about referral pathways were expressed by G2. Both groups noted a need for targeted training to support IPC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IPC between optometrists and occupational therapists in Spain is currently limited and mainly informal. Prior collaborative experience was associated with greater trust and clearer role understanding. Interprofessional education, clear referral pathways and organisational support are essential to strengthen IPC and ensure client-centred, comprehensive care for individuals with visual impairment.</p>","PeriodicalId":49140,"journal":{"name":"Occupational Therapy International","volume":"2026 1","pages":"e7088426"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13458022/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Occupational Therapy International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/oti/7088426","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) between optometrists and occupational therapists is key to optimising care for people with visual and functional difficulties. This study examines the experiences and perceptions of IPC among both disciplines in Spain, identifies factors shaping collaboration and compares actual collaborative practice with perceived IPC priorities.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey. Participants, 138 optometrists and 148 occupational therapists, were categorised into two groups: those with prior collaborative experience (G1 = 92) and those without (G2 = 194). The survey included sociodemographic data, practice fields and perceptions of IPC. Drawing on D'Amour's model, the dimensions of shared goals and vision, internalisation, formalisation and governance-and their related indicators-were analysed. Quantitative data were examined using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Open-ended responses were analysed descriptively.

Results: Only 32.2% of participants reported prior IPC experience, and collaboration was more frequent in paediatric and private settings. Many G2 professionals indicated serving clients with low vision or acquired brain injury without collaborating, highlighting missed opportunities. G1 participants reported a positive impact on practice and professional learning and scored highly in internalisation, indicating trust and mutual understanding. Nevertheless, gaps persisted in shared goals, formalisation and governance. Occupational therapists reported a more client-centred approach than optometrists and perceived some role-boundary barriers. Limited role awareness and uncertainty about referral pathways were expressed by G2. Both groups noted a need for targeted training to support IPC.

Conclusions: IPC between optometrists and occupational therapists in Spain is currently limited and mainly informal. Prior collaborative experience was associated with greater trust and clearer role understanding. Interprofessional education, clear referral pathways and organisational support are essential to strengthen IPC and ensure client-centred, comprehensive care for individuals with visual impairment.

西班牙验光师和职业治疗师跨专业合作的经验和看法:一项横断面研究。
简介:验光师和职业治疗师之间的跨专业合作(IPC)是优化视力和功能障碍患者护理的关键。本研究考察了西班牙两个学科之间IPC的经验和看法,确定了影响合作的因素,并将实际的合作实践与感知的IPC优先事项进行了比较。方法:采用在线调查进行横断面研究。参与者,138名验光师和148名职业治疗师,被分为两组:有合作经验的(G1 = 92)和没有合作经验的(G2 = 194)。该调查包括社会人口统计数据、实践领域和对IPC的看法。根据D’amour的模型,分析了共同目标和愿景、内部化、正规化和治理的维度及其相关指标。定量数据采用描述性统计、卡方检验、Fisher精确检验、Mann-Whitney U检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验进行检验。对开放式回答进行描述性分析。结果:只有32.2%的参与者报告了先前的IPC经验,并且在儿科和私人环境中合作更为频繁。许多G2专业人士表示,在服务视力低下或后天脑损伤的客户时,没有合作,这凸显了错失的机会。G1参与者报告了对实践和专业学习的积极影响,并且在内化方面得分很高,表明信任和相互理解。然而,在共同目标、正规化和治理方面,差距依然存在。据报道,职业治疗师比验光师更注重以客户为中心的方法,并认为存在一些角色界限障碍。G2表达了有限的角色意识和转诊途径的不确定性。两个小组都指出需要有针对性的培训来支持IPC。结论:西班牙验光师和职业治疗师之间的IPC目前有限且主要是非正式的。先前的合作经验与更大的信任和更清晰的角色理解有关。跨专业教育、明确的转诊途径和组织支持对于加强IPC和确保为视力障碍患者提供以客户为中心的全面护理至关重要。
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
2.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
121
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Occupational Therapy International is a peer-reviewed journal, publishing manuscripts that reflect the practice of occupational therapy throughout the world. Research studies or original concept papers are considered for publication. Priority for publication will be given to research studies that provide recommendations for evidence-based practice and demonstrate the effectiveness of a specific treatment method. Single subject case studies evaluating treatment effectiveness are also encouraged. Other topics that are appropriate for the journal include reliability and validity of clinical instruments, assistive technology, community rehabilitation, cultural comparisons, health promotion and wellness.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书