ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2026
Critical thinking in occupational therapy education: A mixed-methods study.
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.
- Critical thinking in occupational therapy education: A mixed-methods study.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCritical thinking is widely recognised as essential for occupational therapy education and practice, yet its conceptualisation, teaching, and assessment remain inconsistent across international contexts. Existing literature highlights a lack of clarity regarding effective pedagogical approaches and a limited understanding of how educators make sense of critical thinking within occupational therapy curricula. This study examined how occupational therapy educators across different countries conceptualise critical thinking and how it features in the programmes they teach.
methodsA convergent mixed-methods design was used. Occupational therapy educators completed an online survey (available in Spanish, Portuguese, and English) containing 28 quantitative items and six open-ended qualitative questions. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and group comparisons were made using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests. Qualitative data underwent inductive content analysis within language groups and were later synthesised across datasets through reflexive, collaborative analysis. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: No consumers were involved in the study conceptualisation or analysis.
resultsResponses revealed a spectrum of conceptualisations of critical thinking, ranging from concrete, pragmatic, and clinically focused understandings to abstract, socially oriented, and transformative perspectives. English-language responses tended to emphasise clinical reasoning, evidence use, and decision-making, whereas Portuguese and Spanish responses more strongly foregrounded reflection on knowledge, sociopolitical structures, and critical action. Teaching practices mirrored this spectrum: Critical thinking was taught unevenly across curricula, most commonly within clinical reasoning or foundational occupational therapy subjects, with fewer programmes explicitly addressing broader sociocultural or transformative dimensions.
conclusionFindings highlight significant epistemological variation shaping how critical thinking is conceptualised and enacted in occupational therapy education. Recognising these epistemological foundations, rather than seeking a universal definition, may support more intentional, inclusive, and socially responsive curriculum design.
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.