ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2026
Occupational therapists' experiences in Australia's primary mental health funding scheme: Navigating complexity in a constrained system.
Article in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2026. 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.
- Occupational therapists' experiences in Australia's primary mental health funding scheme: Navigating complexity in a constrained system.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOccupational therapists in the Australian context provide significant value to mental health, including through Better Access, a Medicare initiative that gives individuals access to up to 10 sessions with a psychologist, social worker, or occupational therapist following a referral from a medical practitioner. However, the experiences of occupational therapists working under the initiative are not widely understood, with no recent occupational therapy-specific research. This study aims to explore the experiences of occupational therapists working under Better Access, their distinct role, and how the system shapes the care clients receive.
methodsThe study used a qualitative, inductive approach. Thirteen occupational therapists who work with people funded by Better Access participated in 30-minute, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed via thematic analysis. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: The lead researcher for this study has lived experience of mental illness and Better Access, but further consumer and community involvement was not undertaken.
findingsAnalysis generated themes highlighting the complexity of occupational therapy practice within a psychology-centric system. Participants described how occupational therapists drew on specialised skills to support clients with complex needs, yet worked within structural constraints such as restrictive practice rules, session caps, and limited remuneration. Themes also reflected the undervaluation of occupational therapy and the need for ongoing advocacy to ensure equitable access to services, appropriate funding, and recognition of the profession's contribution.
conclusionThe design of Better Access restricts the ability of occupational therapists to provide meaningful and sustainable occupational therapy services. Findings provide further evidence that longstanding issues identified in early research have persisted and that the burden occupational therapists face of consistently advocating for the profession and their clients is symptomatic of broader structural inequities. Findings highlight the need for systemic reform.
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.