ReviewThe British journal of occupational therapy2025
Exploring professional reasoning in occupational therapy: A scoping review of recent research.
Review in The British journal of occupational therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Paediatric occupational therapists' views on applying interoception in practice contexts.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
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
Background: Professional reasoning in occupational therapy has become a key line of research. Updating and analyzing recent publications is crucial for the discipline. The objective of the research was to describe new findings and changes in the characteristics of research on professional reasoning in occupational therapy between 2019 and 2023. Method: A scoping review was used with the aim of identifying the development and scope of the literature on professional reasoning in occupational therapy from 2019 to 2023. The review was conducted in five stages following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: Seventy-six articles were described in terms of their nature and volume under the following categories: specific fields of practice, educational strategies for professional reasoning, theoretical discussions, and instruments related to professional reasoning. New findings include two professional reasoning modalities, five practice-related areas, and intervention programs that had not been previously described. Additionally, there has been an increase in the use of mixed methods. Conclusion: This scoping review identifies the nature and volume of literature on professional reasoning in recent years. The study reveals consolidated research lines focused on practice and teaching, alongside new findings and changes observed in recent studies.
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.