Occupational Therapy Interventions Survey Study Part I

Abstract

Background: Global health care is moving toward function, quality of life, and occupation. Occupational therapy (OT) has been the only profession using “occupation” as core intervention since inception. With advancements in intervention techniques, occupational therapists (OTs) need to ensure the continued use of “occupation” as core intervention type. Previous surveys were conducted to analyze the use of specific intervention types: occupation-based interventions (OBIs), creative activities, acute-hospital-based rehabilitation, and different interventions used in pediatric OT practice. However, information on OT practices and types of interventions used by Indian OTs versus global OTs is unavailable. Objectives: The objective of this study was to analyze differences, if any, in the OT practices and types of interventions frequently used in daily practice by Indian versus global OTs. Study Design: This was an online, survey-based, cross-sectional study. Methods: The Google Forms questionnaire link was sent to OTs on E-mail with electronic written informed consent from May 2020 to March 2021 using convenient sampling. The questionnaire included participant's demographics, 17 clinical practice areas, and 9 intervention types and factors influencing OT practice. Total 201 (84 Indian OTs and 117 global OTs) fulfilled the selection criteria: OTs with at least bachelor's degree and minimum 3 years of work experience. Results: Indian OT workforce showed significantly more male OTs than global OTs (31 [36.9%] vs. 11 [9.4%]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.0236–0.2964]; P = 0.0001) and OTs with master's degree (56 [66.7%] vs. 41 [35.04%]; 95% CI: [0.1852–0.4480]; P = 0.0001). Global OTs have more OTs with additional qualifications in non-OT fields (58 [49.57%] vs. 27 [32.10%]; 95% CI: [−0.3088–−0.0406]; P = 0.013) and more OTDs (13 [11.11%] vs. 1 [1.23%]; 95% CI: [−0.1641–−0.0335]; P = 0.006) than Indian OTs. Indian OTs practiced significantly more in the private sector: clinic and hospital (52 [61.90%] vs. 40 [35.80%]; 95% CI: [0.1273–0.3947]; P = 0.0001), whereas global OTs practiced significantly more in the government sector (46 [39.31%] vs. 19 [22.61%]; 95% CI: [−0.2930–−0.0410); P = 0.0124). Among the organizational roles, Indian OTs work significantly more as consultants (50 [50.95%] vs. 35 [29.91%]; 95% CI: [0.0751–0.3457]; P = 0.0001) while global OTs work significantly more as managers (36 [30.76%] vs. 12 [14.28%]; 95% CI: [−0.2770–−0.0526]; P = 0.0069). Among patient population treated, Indian OTs majorly (54.76%) treat children (up to 15 years) but significantly more in “all age groups” (35 [41.67%] vs. 18 [15.38%]; 95% CI: [0.1388–0.3870]; P = 0.0001) while global OTs treat significantly more adults (21–65 years) (61 [52.13%] vs. 25 [29.76%]; 95% CI: [−0.3569– −0.0905]; P = 0.0015) and geriatric (>65 years) (50 [42.73%] vs. 17 [20.23%]; 95% CI: [−0.3492–0.1008]; P = 0.0008). Indian OTs practice significantly more in developmental disability rehabilitation (78 [92.85%] vs. 68 [58.11%]; 95% CI: [0.2424–0.4524]; P = 0.0001), ante- and postnatal women's care (15 [17.85%] vs. 3 [2.56%]; 95% CI: [0.0662–0.2396]; P = 0.00018), and hemophiliac rehabilitation (14 [16.67%] vs. 2 [1.70%]; 95% CI: [0.0666–0.2328]; P = 0.00012) areas of practice than global OTs. Indian OTs practice significantly more in clinic outpatient department (OPD) (62 [73.80%] vs. 55 [47%]; 95% CI: [0.1375–03985]; P = 0.0001), hospital OPD (40 [47.61%] vs. 27 [23.07%]; 95% CI: [0.1141–0.3767]; P = 0.0002), and inpatient (37 [44.04%] vs. 30 [25.64%]; 95% CI: [0.0516–0.3164]; P = 0.0006) while global OTs practice significantly more in natural environment settings (53 [45.29%] vs. 24 [28.57%]; 95% CI: [−0.2994–−0.0350]; P = 0.016). Most preferred types of interventions among both groups are relatively the same: client education, counseling, and consultation and interview; therapeutic relationships; and therapeutic use of self. Besides these, Indian OTs prefer performance skills training and adaptive interventions, while global OTs prefer activities as therapeutic media and OBIs over other types. Preventive interventions and advocacy were the least preferred types of intervention among each group. Despite these relative preferences, significant differences were found between groups with regard to number of OTs practicing these 5 types of interventions: client education, counseling, and consultation (46 [54.76%] vs. 47 [40.17%]; 95% CI: [0.0073–0.2845]; P = 0.04]; performance skills training (41 [48.80%] vs. 34 [29.05%]; 95% CI: [0.0626–0.3324]; P = 0.004); preventive intervention and health promotion (29 [34.5%] vs. 24 [20.51%]; 95% CI: [0.0148–0.308]; P = 0.026]; adaptive interventions (39 [46.42%] vs. 23 [19.65%]; 95% CI: [0.1390–0.3964]; P = 0.001]; and preparatory interventions: (35 [41.67%] vs. 28 [23.93%]; 95% CI: [0.0467–0.3081]; P = 0.0075). Conclusion: The study provides the current stand for preferences and practices of therapeutic interventions by OTs in India versus globally, thus aiding in repositioning of OT practice, focusing on core OT domains as well as providing a baseline for monitoring practice trends over time.