Mapping Effectiveness Studies of Occupational Therapy in Africa: A Scoping Review.
Journal
Occupational therapy international
ISSN: 1557-0703
Titre abrégé: Occup Ther Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9433361
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
26
05
2023
revised:
23
09
2023
accepted:
25
09
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
30
11
2023
entrez:
30
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Contextual relevance is an important consideration for evidence-based practice, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the nature of practice may differ from high-income countries. Resources and access to rehabilitation are constrained, and service-users face a range of intersecting challenges to activity and participation. To evaluate the body of evidence for the effectiveness of occupational therapy in Africa, and to determine if systematic reviews with meta-analysis and/or meta-synthesis are feasible. The search yielded 4199 articles, of which 45 were included. Evidence in six fields of practice included paediatrics, mental health, physical rehabilitation, hand therapy, work practice, and community development, although the evidence was largely limited to South Africa (93% studies). Levels of evidence varied but included 13 RCTs. In all, 1957 participants were included, ranging in age from 25 days to 99 years, with a wide range of health conditions. Most studies reported a positive outcome for occupational therapy. Findings suggest a moderate body of evidence to support occupational therapy in Africa. Systematic review with meta-analysis, assessment of risk of bias, and in-depth analysis of specific areas of practice are now required. All effectiveness studies in occupational therapy should include measures of occupational performance or participation, minimum reporting standard checklists should be used more consistently, and effect sizes should be consistently calculated and reported in effectiveness research.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Contextual relevance is an important consideration for evidence-based practice, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the nature of practice may differ from high-income countries. Resources and access to rehabilitation are constrained, and service-users face a range of intersecting challenges to activity and participation.
Aim
UNASSIGNED
To evaluate the body of evidence for the effectiveness of occupational therapy in Africa, and to determine if systematic reviews with meta-analysis and/or meta-synthesis are feasible.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The search yielded 4199 articles, of which 45 were included. Evidence in six fields of practice included paediatrics, mental health, physical rehabilitation, hand therapy, work practice, and community development, although the evidence was largely limited to South Africa (93% studies). Levels of evidence varied but included 13 RCTs. In all, 1957 participants were included, ranging in age from 25 days to 99 years, with a wide range of health conditions. Most studies reported a positive outcome for occupational therapy.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Findings suggest a moderate body of evidence to support occupational therapy in Africa. Systematic review with meta-analysis, assessment of risk of bias, and in-depth analysis of specific areas of practice are now required. All effectiveness studies in occupational therapy should include measures of occupational performance or participation, minimum reporting standard checklists should be used more consistently, and effect sizes should be consistently calculated and reported in effectiveness research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38034943
doi: 10.1155/2023/6688222
pmc: PMC10686713
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6688222Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Nicola Ann Plastow et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
JAMA. 2021 Aug 17;326(7):621-627
pubmed: 34402850
Global Health. 2018 Aug 15;14(1):82
pubmed: 30111333
Am J Occup Ther. 2018 Sep/Oct;72(5):7205345010p1-7205345010p6
pubmed: 30157020
Occup Ther Int. 2018 Dec 19;2018:3652529
pubmed: 30662380
J Hand Ther. 2020 Jul - Sep;33(3):426-434
pubmed: 30857892
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 11;9(11):e026308
pubmed: 31719067
Scand J Occup Ther. 2023 Jan;30(1):1-13
pubmed: 35995214
Maturitas. 2019 Sep;127:43-50
pubmed: 31351519
Hum Resour Health. 2017 Jun 12;15(1):37
pubmed: 28606103
Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Aug;41(16):1974-1980
pubmed: 29701509
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;83:24-30
pubmed: 27349186
Aust Occup Ther J. 2020 Oct;67(5):498-511
pubmed: 32748434
Am J Occup Ther. 2022 Jan 1;76(1):
pubmed: 34997838
Am J Occup Ther. 2010 Jul-Aug;64(4):621-32
pubmed: 20825134
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 24;18(11):
pubmed: 34073899
S Afr Med J. 2017 Oct 31;107(11):976-982
pubmed: 29262939
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jan 3;3(1):e1919325
pubmed: 31922554
Am J Health Promot. 2023 Jun;37(5):698-704
pubmed: 36503271
Aust Occup Ther J. 2019 Jun;66(3):258-273
pubmed: 30968419
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jan;67(1):56-64
pubmed: 24189091
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
J Affect Disord. 2021 Mar 1;282:962-973
pubmed: 33601741
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jun 11;9:34
pubmed: 19519887
Disabil Rehabil. 2023 Mar;45(6):937-949
pubmed: 35298321
Occup Ther Int. 2008;15(2):71-86
pubmed: 18278826
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Am J Occup Ther. 2022 Jan 1;76(1):
pubmed: 35044450
Hum Resour Health. 2020 Mar 20;18(1):22
pubmed: 32192502
Work. 2017 Sep 14;58(1):63-72
pubmed: 28922182
J Hand Ther. 2014 Oct-Dec;27(4):325-8; quiz 329
pubmed: 24725609
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2016 Aug;36(3):272-91
pubmed: 26861153