A scoping review of coaching in occupational therapy: Mapping methods, populations and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".