ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2024
A scoping review of coaching in occupational therapy: Mapping methods, populations and outcomes.
Article in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative Health and Wellness Coaching in Occupational Therapy-A Scoping Review.Occupational therapy international · 2026Article
- 'Ask someone, what is their Dreaming?': Exploring occupational performance coaching with service providers supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2025Review
- Acceptability and feasibility of online occupational performance coaching for parents of children with disabilities in the UK.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2025Article
- Implementation of a Family Centered Telecoaching Intervention for Parents of Children with Motor Difficulties: A Multimethod Process Evaluation.International journal of telerehabilitation · 2025Article
- A scoping review of coaching in occupational therapy: Mapping methods, populations and outcomes.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoaching is proposed as a core enabling skill of occupational therapy and increasingly suggested for a diverse range of health populations. In recent years, research on coaching has proliferated, emerging from within and outside of occupational therapy. Yet, concern has been raised about the absence of theoretical underpinning and diversity of descriptions of coaching in occupational therapy, as well as low-quality evidence supporting its effectiveness. The aim of this study is to map the use of coaching by occupational therapists from 2007 to 2022 to identify the populations, settings and outcomes it is applied to, differences between coaching interventions and evidence supporting its use.
methodsThis systematic scoping review applied Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework with further methodological direction using the Levac framework. There was no consumer involvement in undertaking this review.
resultsFindings from 60 research publications on coaching indicate its use with populations across the lifespan in primarily community settings to improve occupational performance, participation and self-efficacy. A wide range of coaching interventions are designed or used by occupational therapists, with Occupational Performance Coaching being the most researched (16/27, 59% of named interventions). Common elements of coaching interventions included collaborative goal setting and problem-solving; however, a lack of described theory or coaching methods persists. High-quality study designs indicate its effectiveness; however, an absence of fidelity definition or monitoring limits interpretation of many studies.
conclusionThe language of coaching is becoming common practice within occupational therapy, and evidence indicates effectiveness of some coaching interventions. Advances in coaching research and use by occupational therapists will be aided by an explicit statement of the theoretical basis for coaching interventions, with congruent coaching methods, mechanisms and outcomes stated. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This scoping review maps the use of coaching by occupational therapists in current published research. Key aspects of coaching examined include how coaching is defined, who it is used with and how effective it is. The kinds of outcomes that coaching is intended to improve are also reported. From 633 publications, 60 research publications were fully analysed. The use of coaching by occupational therapists has grown rapidly over the past 10 years. Strong evidence of its effectiveness exists for achieving the personal goals of people receiving occupational therapy when goals describe changes in everyday life activities. Coaching is being used with people across the lifespan with a variety of disabilities and chronic conditions and their caregivers/parents, most commonly parents of children with developmental issues. The key features of coaching interventions used by occupational therapists include collaborative goal setting, shared problem-solving and client-led action planning. Some elements of coaching are also used within other interventions with a wider range of methods. Coaching is believed to work by supporting an individual's self-belief that they can make changes. Theories that underpin coaching vary but commonly focus on self-determination, behaviour change and occupational therapy theory. However, many of the coaching interventions do not describe any theoretical basis nor coaching methods in detail. Future research on coaching in occupational therapy should ensure a clear explanation of the theory that underpins it, coaching methods and monitoring of how well coaching is applied.
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.