ArticleThe British journal of occupational therapy2025
Primary care occupational therapist's methods of outcome evaluation: Do they align to value-based healthcare?
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Occupational therapy roles are increasing across General Practice in primary care. The evidence base is growing; however, the best way to evaluate outcomes and the impact of practice in this setting remains unclear. Consideration for how methods used align to ambitions of value-based healthcare is also required. This study explored evaluation methods used by occupational therapists, providing services to General Practice in Wales within the context of value-based healthcare. Method: An online focus group was conducted with 13 members of a Welsh Primary Care Occupational Therapy network. Mixed methods were used and Mentimeter results and findings from group discussion were analysed through content and framework analysis. Results: A multifaceted but inconsistent approach to evaluation was reported. Methods used, strengthened by professional core values, broadly aligned practice to shared ambitions of value-based healthcare. The use of validated patient rated scales were most commonly used to evaluate patient experience, whilst cost-effectiveness was least well considered. Conclusion: Further research is required to understand occupational therapy evaluation in this setting to identify what is needed by stakeholders to determine impact and establish value. This could inform care at both an individual level and across populations if consistent data are collected at scale.
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.