ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2022
Professional reasoning of occupational therapy driver rehabilitation interventions.
Article in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic Evidence in Occupational Therapy: A Rapid Review.Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie · 2025Review
- Occupational therapy students experience professional reasoning during their practice-based learning: A dialogical analysis.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2025Article
- Exploring professional reasoning in occupational therapy: A scoping review of recent research.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2025Review
- Professional reasoning of occupational therapy driver rehabilitation interventions.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDriver-trained occupational therapists are advanced practitioners who work with people to help maintain their independence and autonomy through driving. There is a lack of investigation of professional reasoning processes for why interventions are recommended by driver-trained occupational therapists. This research project sought to explore the reasoning of driver-trained occupational therapists when they plan, implement, and reflect on driver rehabilitation interventions.
methodsIn-depth semistructured interviews (n = 7) and one focus group (n = 5) were conducted with 12 experienced driver-trained occupational therapists, comprising a wide range of experience, client populations, and licensing jurisdictions. Data were analysed using a modified template analysis approach.
resultsSeven higher order modes that reflect professional reasoning theory and hierarchical models were evident in the work of the driver-trained occupational therapists, with no new modes of reasoning emerging. Ethical reasoning regarding the balance of safety versus client independence was an overarching shared framework, with therapists mostly using interactive and conditional reasoning in practice. Twenty-three second-level themes were identified that exemplify how the reasoning modes operate in practice. Therapists described assessment activity even when solely asked about intervention, indicating the importance of assessment to intervention design. The full hierarchy of reasoning was evident during the rehabilitation phase.
conclusionThese findings elucidate the application of professional reasoning in advanced occupational therapy practices and could support driver-trained occupational therapists in making driving rehabilitation recommendations if used in reflective practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.