MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4402768945 · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12991

A scoping review of coaching in occupational therapy: Mapping methods, populations and outcomes

2024· review· en· W4402768945 sur OpenAlexaff
Fiona Graham, Dorothy Kessler, Melissa Nott, Charmaine Bernie, Parimala S. Kanagasabai, Christine Barthow

Notice bibliographique

RevueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2024
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesCharles Sturt UniversityAustralian GovernmentUniversity of Otago
Mots-clésCoachingPsychological interventionOccupational therapyFidelityPsychologyDiversity (politics)Applied psychologyMedicineMedical educationPsychotherapistPsychiatryEngineeringPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Coaching is proposed as a core enabling skill of occupational therapy and increasingly suggested for a diverse range of health populations. In recent years, research on coaching has proliferated, emerging from within and outside of occupational therapy. Yet, concern has been raised about the absence of theoretical underpinning and diversity of descriptions of coaching in occupational therapy, as well as low-quality evidence supporting its effectiveness. The aim of this study is to map the use of coaching by occupational therapists from 2007 to 2022 to identify the populations, settings and outcomes it is applied to, differences between coaching interventions and evidence supporting its use. METHODS: This systematic scoping review applied Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework with further methodological direction using the Levac framework. There was no consumer involvement in undertaking this review. RESULTS: Findings from 60 research publications on coaching indicate its use with populations across the lifespan in primarily community settings to improve occupational performance, participation and self-efficacy. A wide range of coaching interventions are designed or used by occupational therapists, with Occupational Performance Coaching being the most researched (16/27, 59% of named interventions). Common elements of coaching interventions included collaborative goal setting and problem-solving; however, a lack of described theory or coaching methods persists. High-quality study designs indicate its effectiveness; however, an absence of fidelity definition or monitoring limits interpretation of many studies. CONCLUSION: The language of coaching is becoming common practice within occupational therapy, and evidence indicates effectiveness of some coaching interventions. Advances in coaching research and use by occupational therapists will be aided by an explicit statement of the theoretical basis for coaching interventions, with congruent coaching methods, mechanisms and outcomes stated. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This scoping review maps the use of coaching by occupational therapists in current published research. Key aspects of coaching examined include how coaching is defined, who it is used with and how effective it is. The kinds of outcomes that coaching is intended to improve are also reported. From 633 publications, 60 research publications were fully analysed. The use of coaching by occupational therapists has grown rapidly over the past 10 years. Strong evidence of its effectiveness exists for achieving the personal goals of people receiving occupational therapy when goals describe changes in everyday life activities. Coaching is being used with people across the lifespan with a variety of disabilities and chronic conditions and their caregivers/parents, most commonly parents of children with developmental issues. The key features of coaching interventions used by occupational therapists include collaborative goal setting, shared problem-solving and client-led action planning. Some elements of coaching are also used within other interventions with a wider range of methods. Coaching is believed to work by supporting an individual's self-belief that they can make changes. Theories that underpin coaching vary but commonly focus on self-determination, behaviour change and occupational therapy theory. However, many of the coaching interventions do not describe any theoretical basis nor coaching methods in detail. Future research on coaching in occupational therapy should ensure a clear explanation of the theory that underpins it, coaching methods and monitoring of how well coaching is applied.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,829
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,700
Tête enseignante GPT0,681
Écart entre enseignants0,019 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalMême sujetOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchTravaux en français237 207