Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41160461›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie2025

The Knowledge We Hold: Exploring Occupational Therapy's Epistemic Identity and the Balance Between Evidence and Practice.

Aliki Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Aliki Thomas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

[Formula: see text]Aliki ThomasOccupational therapy has long drawn strength from its ability to integrate diverse forms of knowledge, scientific evidence, clinical expertise, patient narratives, and embodied wisdom. This lectureship explores the profession's epistemic identity: how we develop, validate, and apply knowledge in practice, and how this identity enables us to respond to complex health and social challenges. Drawing on historical and contemporary case examples, the author examines the evolution of occupational therapy knowledge, tracing shifts from intuitive, relational care to evidence-based models and toward today's epistemically pluralistic landscape. She argues that occupational therapy is not only shaped by multiple forms of knowledge but also functions as an epistemic community, one that holds authoritative, policy-relevant knowledge and contributes meaningfully to interdisciplinary networks. This identity positions occupational therapists to influence care models, policy directions, and systems transformation. However, our influence depends on epistemic humility, strategic collaboration, and a commitment to bridging research, practice, and lived experience. The author then outlines three key calls to action: (1) strengthening our knowledge base through pluralism and reflexivity; (2) amplifying our collective voice by clarifying professional identity and reducing fragmentation; and (3) increasing our policy influence through purposeful collaboration and leadership. In rapidly evolving healthcare environments, occupational therapy must assert its role not only in delivering services, but in stewarding integrated, context-sensitive knowledge that drives equity, participation, and justice.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeKnowledgeOccupational TherapyHumansEpistemic communitiesEpistemic humilityPluralismPolicy influenceSystems transformation

Identifiers

PMID41160461
PMCPMC12799800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.