ReviewThe British journal of occupational therapy2026
Methodological and Historical Evolution of Indexed Publications in Occupational Therapy.
Review in The British journal of occupational therapy, 2026. 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: Indexed publications in occupational therapy reflect the field's evolving priorities, practices, and methodologies. They play a central role in advancing research, informing professional practice, and fostering theoretical development. This study explores the historical and methodological evolution of indexed publications in occupational therapy to identify trends, thematic shifts, and methodological progress. Method: A bibliometric analysis was conducted on 10,776 articles published between 1945 and 2022 in 15 occupational therapy journals indexed in the Web of Science database. Articles were systematically screened, and performance indicators, citation patterns, and thematic trends were analyzed. Results: The findings revealed three distinct publication periods: foundational (1945-1989), expansion (1990-2009), and maturity (2010-2022). Thematic priorities evolved over time, shifting from physical rehabilitation to mental health, community-based interventions, and broader inclusion of diverse populations. Methodologically, the field progressed from qualitative reviews and descriptive studies to a greater presence of mixed methods, systematic reviews, and experimental designs, although some limitations in rigor persist. Conclusion: Occupational therapy research has experienced significant growth, thematic diversification, and increasing methodological sophistication. These developments reflect the profession's responsiveness to changing societal needs and clinical contexts. The study highlights the importance of sustaining evidence-based practice, interdisciplinary collaboration, and continued investment in high-quality research to support the evolution of the discipline.
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.