MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4408412480 · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.70006

How spirituality is understood in occupational therapy: A qualitative study

2025· review· en· W4408412480 sur OpenAlexaff
Heather So, Lynette Mackenzie, Christine Chapparo, Judy Ranka, Mary Ann McColl

Notice bibliographique

RevueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpiritualityOccupational therapyReflexivityThematic analysisPsychologyPsychotherapistQualitative researchMeaning (existential)MedicineAlternative medicineSociologyPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Since the inception of occupational therapy, spirituality has been a unique component of practice. However, much of the professional discourse on how to define spirituality has originated internationally. This study aimed to explore how Australian occupational therapists interpret and understand spirituality in their practice. METHODS: This study employed an interpretive phenomenological methodology and reflexive thematic analysis. Twenty-three individual interviews were conducted with Australian occupational therapists across various work and specialty contexts. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Because the participants in this study were occupational therapists, the research design did not include input from consumers or the community. FINDINGS: Three main themes emerged from this study: (i) definitions of spirituality were complex and often described a person's connection to meaning and purpose in life; (ii) human factors that supported addressing spirituality included therapist self-reflection and clinical experience, while therapist discomfort and specific client circumstances acted as barriers; and (iii) environmental factors that supported addressing spirituality included access to training and a supportive workplace, while barriers included cultural taboos, as well as time and funding limitations. CONCLUSION: All occupational therapist participants acknowledged spirituality as the meaningful connection between one's inner self and the outer world, and for most participants, this included acknowledging the transcendent. Therapist skills that facilitated the integration of spirituality into practice included self-reflection and building rapport with clients, which therapists could control. However, factors like years of clinical experience were beyond their control. In terms of environmental factors, therapists could influence their access to spirituality training, but aspects like a supportive work environment were often outside their influence. Additionally, many therapists reported feeling uncomfortable discussing spirituality within what they considered to be a culturally closed local context. To help overcome these challenges, the occupational therapy profession could benefit from developing culturally sensitive spirituality resources, research, and training. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Spirituality has always been a part of occupational therapy, but much of the talking about it comes from other countries. This study looked at how Australian occupational therapists see spirituality. We interviewed 23 occupational therapists from all different jobs. They all agreed that spirituality is about connecting a person's inner self with the world. While therapists could control things like self-reflection and building relationships with clients, their years of clinical experience was outside their control. Likewise, they may be able to look for further education, but a supportive work environment was often out of their hands. Many therapists also felt uncomfortable discussing spirituality in workplaces where it was not openly accepted. To face these challenges, the profession may need more resources, research, and training on spirituality in practice.

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)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,775
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,400
Tête enseignante GPT0,553
Écart entre enseignants0,152 · 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'étudeSans objet
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

Citations5
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalMême sujetReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyTravaux en français237 207