职业治疗中的认知评估:一项定性分析。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Anna E Boone, Timothy S Marks, Timothy J Wolf, Gordon M Giles, Dorothy Farrar-Edwards
{"title":"职业治疗中的认知评估:一项定性分析。","authors":"Anna E Boone, Timothy S Marks, Timothy J Wolf, Gordon M Giles, Dorothy Farrar-Edwards","doi":"10.5014/ajot.2025.051112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Standardized evidence-based cognitive assessments, including functional cognitive assessments, are key to the identification of cognitive impairments and provision of occupational therapy services.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the current practices related to cognitive assessments and barriers to their use in acute care and inpatient rehabilitation occupational therapy services.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We used a cross-sectional, qualitative approach that included five focus groups conducted with occupational therapy practitioners and key informant interviews with occupational therapy supervisors (n = 5). Data were analyzed by two coders using an inductive content analysis approach.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Acute care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Occupational therapy practitioners (N = 31).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Customary cognitive assessment included use of self- and proxy report measures, neurocognitive screening tools, and skilled observation. Use of standardized tests, including performance-based tests (PBTs), was limited. Barrier-related themes endorsed by most participants included organizational pressures, accessing and using evidence, conforming to the setting's culture, characteristics of the built environment, and assessment complexity. An outlier group that relied heavily on performance-based functional cognitive tests was identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Current occupational therapy practice primarily consists of informal, unstandardized methods of identifying cognitive impairments. Use of standardized assessment is infrequent. Personal and organizational barriers identified were consistent with those identified in the literature. Despite endorsing identified barriers that are perceived as constraining their use, an outlier group consistently used PBTs of functional cognition. This outlier group's negotiation of barriers presents opportunities for how to target evidence-based implementation efforts. Plain-Language Summary: This article describes occupational therapists' current practices related to the use of cognitive tests. We asked therapists about factors that affect their use of different types of formal cognitive tests; specifically, we looked at the use of pencil-and-paper cognitive tests versus tests that use simulated real-world activities to assess function. Occupational therapists reported many barriers to using cognitive tests of either type, including a lack of time, difficulty accessing tests, and unfamiliar tests that are hard to learn. Most therapists predominantly use informal methods of assessing client's cognition or pencil-and-paper screening methods. One group differed in that its members mostly used formal assessments of simulated real-world tasks to evaluate the ability to perform everyday life tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":48317,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":"79 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Assessment in Occupational Therapy: A Qualitative Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Anna E Boone, Timothy S Marks, Timothy J Wolf, Gordon M Giles, Dorothy Farrar-Edwards\",\"doi\":\"10.5014/ajot.2025.051112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Standardized evidence-based cognitive assessments, including functional cognitive assessments, are key to the identification of cognitive impairments and provision of occupational therapy services.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the current practices related to cognitive assessments and barriers to their use in acute care and inpatient rehabilitation occupational therapy services.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We used a cross-sectional, qualitative approach that included five focus groups conducted with occupational therapy practitioners and key informant interviews with occupational therapy supervisors (n = 5). Data were analyzed by two coders using an inductive content analysis approach.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Acute care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Occupational therapy practitioners (N = 31).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Customary cognitive assessment included use of self- and proxy report measures, neurocognitive screening tools, and skilled observation. Use of standardized tests, including performance-based tests (PBTs), was limited. Barrier-related themes endorsed by most participants included organizational pressures, accessing and using evidence, conforming to the setting's culture, characteristics of the built environment, and assessment complexity. An outlier group that relied heavily on performance-based functional cognitive tests was identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Current occupational therapy practice primarily consists of informal, unstandardized methods of identifying cognitive impairments. Use of standardized assessment is infrequent. Personal and organizational barriers identified were consistent with those identified in the literature. Despite endorsing identified barriers that are perceived as constraining their use, an outlier group consistently used PBTs of functional cognition. This outlier group's negotiation of barriers presents opportunities for how to target evidence-based implementation efforts. Plain-Language Summary: This article describes occupational therapists' current practices related to the use of cognitive tests. We asked therapists about factors that affect their use of different types of formal cognitive tests; specifically, we looked at the use of pencil-and-paper cognitive tests versus tests that use simulated real-world activities to assess function. Occupational therapists reported many barriers to using cognitive tests of either type, including a lack of time, difficulty accessing tests, and unfamiliar tests that are hard to learn. Most therapists predominantly use informal methods of assessing client's cognition or pencil-and-paper screening methods. One group differed in that its members mostly used formal assessments of simulated real-world tasks to evaluate the ability to perform everyday life tasks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"volume\":\"79 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2025.051112\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2025.051112","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:标准化的基于证据的认知评估,包括功能性认知评估,是识别认知障碍和提供职业治疗服务的关键。目的:探讨认知评估在急症护理和住院康复职业治疗服务中的应用现状及障碍。设计:我们采用横断面定性方法,包括与职业治疗从业人员进行的五个焦点小组和与职业治疗主管进行的关键信息提供者访谈(n = 5)。数据分析由两个编码器使用归纳内容分析方法。环境:急症护理和住院康复医院。参与者:职业治疗从业人员(N = 31)。结果:习惯认知评估包括使用自我和代理报告测量,神经认知筛查工具和熟练观察。使用标准化测试,包括基于成绩的测试(pbt),是有限的。大多数参与者认可的与障碍相关的主题包括组织压力、获取和使用证据、符合设置的文化、建筑环境的特征以及评估的复杂性。一个严重依赖基于性能的功能认知测试的异常组被确定。结论和相关性:目前的职业治疗实践主要由非正式的、非标准化的识别认知障碍的方法组成。标准化评估的使用很少。发现的个人和组织障碍与文献中发现的一致。尽管认可被认为限制其使用的已识别障碍,但一个异常组始终使用功能认知的pbt。这一异常群体对障碍的谈判为如何针对循证实施工作提供了机会。简明扼要:这篇文章描述了职业治疗师目前使用认知测试的做法。我们向治疗师询问影响他们使用不同类型的正式认知测试的因素;具体来说,我们研究了使用铅笔和纸的认知测试与使用模拟现实世界活动来评估功能的测试。职业治疗师报告了使用这两种类型的认知测试的许多障碍,包括缺乏时间,难以获得测试,以及不熟悉的测试难以学习。大多数治疗师主要使用非正式的方法来评估来访者的认知或纸笔筛选方法。其中一组的不同之处在于,其成员大多使用模拟现实世界任务的正式评估来评估执行日常生活任务的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cognitive Assessment in Occupational Therapy: A Qualitative Analysis.

Importance: Standardized evidence-based cognitive assessments, including functional cognitive assessments, are key to the identification of cognitive impairments and provision of occupational therapy services.

Objective: To explore the current practices related to cognitive assessments and barriers to their use in acute care and inpatient rehabilitation occupational therapy services.

Design: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative approach that included five focus groups conducted with occupational therapy practitioners and key informant interviews with occupational therapy supervisors (n = 5). Data were analyzed by two coders using an inductive content analysis approach.

Setting: Acute care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals.

Participants: Occupational therapy practitioners (N = 31).

Results: Customary cognitive assessment included use of self- and proxy report measures, neurocognitive screening tools, and skilled observation. Use of standardized tests, including performance-based tests (PBTs), was limited. Barrier-related themes endorsed by most participants included organizational pressures, accessing and using evidence, conforming to the setting's culture, characteristics of the built environment, and assessment complexity. An outlier group that relied heavily on performance-based functional cognitive tests was identified.

Conclusions and relevance: Current occupational therapy practice primarily consists of informal, unstandardized methods of identifying cognitive impairments. Use of standardized assessment is infrequent. Personal and organizational barriers identified were consistent with those identified in the literature. Despite endorsing identified barriers that are perceived as constraining their use, an outlier group consistently used PBTs of functional cognition. This outlier group's negotiation of barriers presents opportunities for how to target evidence-based implementation efforts. Plain-Language Summary: This article describes occupational therapists' current practices related to the use of cognitive tests. We asked therapists about factors that affect their use of different types of formal cognitive tests; specifically, we looked at the use of pencil-and-paper cognitive tests versus tests that use simulated real-world activities to assess function. Occupational therapists reported many barriers to using cognitive tests of either type, including a lack of time, difficulty accessing tests, and unfamiliar tests that are hard to learn. Most therapists predominantly use informal methods of assessing client's cognition or pencil-and-paper screening methods. One group differed in that its members mostly used formal assessments of simulated real-world tasks to evaluate the ability to perform everyday life tasks.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.30%
发文量
406
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) is an official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc. and is published 6 times per year. This peer reviewed journal focuses on research, practice, and health care issues in the field of occupational therapy. AOTA members receive 6 issues of AJOT per year and have online access to archived abstracts and full-text articles. Nonmembers may view abstracts online but must purchase full-text articles.
×
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