4.4 Article

Occupational therapist practice patterns in relation to clients with cognitive impairment following acquired brain injury

Journal

BRAIN INJURY
Volume 28, Issue 11, Pages 1365-1373

Publisher

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2014.919529

Keywords

Assessment; intervention; occupational therapy cognition

Funding

  1. Orebro University
  2. Swedish Association of Occupational Therapists

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Primary objective: To describe Swedish occupational therapist practice patterns for clients with cognitive impairment following acquired brain injury. Research design: A cross-sectional stratified random sample of 462 occupational therapists. Methods: An online questionnaire was used to collect data. Main results: The predominant practice pattern was the use of ADL-activities for assessment and therapy regardless of whether limitations in occupational performance or cognitive function were assessed or whether the approach was remedial or compensatory. For assessment, general ADL-instruments were used more often than instruments that assessed cognitive function. Instruments were used less often within municipal rehabilitation facilities compared to regional, county and primary care facilities. The most common focus of the therapies was in regard to abilities related to executive functioning. Another prominent practice pattern was a collaborative approach involving clients, relatives and other staff. The theories used in practice were, to a large extent, general in nature and did not focus specifically on cognitive functioning. Conclusions: Swedish occupational therapy practice for clients with cognitive impairments following acquired brain injury focuses highly on occupational performance. Therapies targeting executive functioning seem particularly important in practice and a collaborative approach involving clients, relatives and other staff is a prominent feature in practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available