ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2026
A Systematic Review of Innovative Approaches in Theoretical Education of Occupational Therapy in the 21st Century.
Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
Objective: Occupational therapy education is rapidly evolving as shifting healthcare demands and digital innovation challenge traditional theory-based teaching. Increasing role complexity and the need for evidence-based reasoning have accelerated the adoption of adaptive technology-supported pedagogies that strengthen critical thinking and improve knowledge transfer. This review synthesizes the literature on innovative teaching methods for undergraduate occupational therapy students, identifying key 21st-century approaches, their impact on learning and clinical reasoning, and implications for teaching practice and research. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (ISI), and Cochrane Library (2000-February 2026), supplemented with Google Scholar grey literature, was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 2153 records were screened. Thirty‑three studies highlighted the value of simulation, active learning, blended learning, flipped classrooms, and experiential learning in enhancing the engagement and application of theoretical concepts. Interprofessional education supported collaborative skills, whereas structured reflection strengthened clinical reasoning. Several studies have focused on educators rather than students, revealing gaps in learner-centered evidence. Conclusion: Innovative approaches grounded in constructivist, experiential, and situated learning frameworks improve conceptual understanding, engagement, and reasoning, especially when paired with authentic context and reflection. However, limited articulation of learning mechanisms and inconsistent outcome evaluations hinder cumulative evidence. Future curriculum designs should align pedagogical innovations with explicit theoretical foundations and employ distinct measures of learning and transfer.
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.