ArticleOccupational therapy international2026
Experiences and Perceptions of Interprofessional Collaboration Among Spanish Optometrists and Occupational Therapists: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Occupational therapy international, 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.
- Experiences and Perceptions of Interprofessional Collaboration Among Spanish Optometrists and Occupational Therapists: A Cross-Sectional Study.Occupational therapy international · 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
introductionInterprofessional collaboration (IPC) between optometrists and occupational therapists is key to optimising care for people with visual and functional difficulties. This study examines the experiences and perceptions of IPC among both disciplines in Spain, identifies factors shaping collaboration and compares actual collaborative practice with perceived IPC priorities.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey. Participants, 138 optometrists and 148 occupational therapists, were categorised into two groups: those with prior collaborative experience (G1 = 92) and those without (G2 = 194). The survey included sociodemographic data, practice fields and perceptions of IPC. Drawing on D'Amour's model, the dimensions of shared goals and vision, internalisation, formalisation and governance-and their related indicators-were analysed. Quantitative data were examined using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Open-ended responses were analysed descriptively.
resultsOnly 32.2% of participants reported prior IPC experience, and collaboration was more frequent in paediatric and private settings. Many G2 professionals indicated serving clients with low vision or acquired brain injury without collaborating, highlighting missed opportunities. G1 participants reported a positive impact on practice and professional learning and scored highly in internalisation, indicating trust and mutual understanding. Nevertheless, gaps persisted in shared goals, formalisation and governance. Occupational therapists reported a more client-centred approach than optometrists and perceived some role-boundary barriers. Limited role awareness and uncertainty about referral pathways were expressed by G2. Both groups noted a need for targeted training to support IPC.
conclusionsIPC between optometrists and occupational therapists in Spain is currently limited and mainly informal. Prior collaborative experience was associated with greater trust and clearer role understanding. Interprofessional education, clear referral pathways and organisational support are essential to strengthen IPC and ensure client-centred, comprehensive care for individuals with visual impairment.
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.