Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JBI evidence synthesis Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.11124/JBIES-23-00183
Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Catherine Purcell
{"title":"Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review.","authors":"Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Catherine Purcell","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aimed to map how occupational therapists evaluate the outcomes of services they provide within primary care. This evidence was considered in relation to how identified outcome evaluation methods align to principles of value-based health care.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Primary care services are experiencing unprecedented demands. Occupational therapy is an allied health profession that supports health and care provision in primary care, using a timely and proactive approach. There has been a notable increase in occupational therapy roles across primary care services in the past decade; however, the mechanisms for evaluating outcomes and the wider impact of these services remain under-researched. The aim of value-based health care, a global transformative approach, is to establish better health outcomes for individuals and communities through addressing value in system-wide care. However, it is not yet clear how evaluation methods used within occupational therapy align to the principles of a value-based agenda.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Peer-reviewed journal articles and gray literature written in English were included to identify outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of occupational therapy services provided in a primary care setting. Outcome evaluation methods used exclusively for the purpose of conducting research and not for capturing data within an occupational therapy primary care setting as part of routine clinical practice were excluded.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review followed JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The literature search was undertaken during June and July 2022. The following databases were searched from their earliest dates of availability: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Scopus, AMED, and Web of Science. Two reviewers extracted data, supported by use of an extraction form developed by the reviewers. Findings were mapped using a framework developed based on key principles of value-based health care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2394 articles, 16 eligible studies were included in the review. Of these, 9 were quantitative and 7 were of mixed methods design. Studies were from the UK, USA, Sweden, Spain, and Canada. The occupational therapy services represented were mainly heterogeneous. Four services were part of multidisciplinary programs of care and 12 services were specific to occupational therapy. Identified outcome evaluation methods broadly aligned to principles of value-based health care, with most alignment noted for measures demonstrating the aim of establishing better health. A wide range of evaluation methods were described to address both individual-level and service-level outcomes, with the use of patient-reported outcome measures identified in 13 studies. To capture patient experience, most studies reported a variety of methods. The aim of reducing the per capita cost of health care was least represented in the literature.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This scoping review highlights a multifaceted but inconsistent approach to measuring the outcomes of occupational therapy provided in primary care. This has implications for establishing effectiveness and capturing data at scale to assist with wider planning of care and to enable the profession to demonstrate its contribution to value-based health care.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/hnaq4/.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This scoping review aimed to map how occupational therapists evaluate the outcomes of services they provide within primary care. This evidence was considered in relation to how identified outcome evaluation methods align to principles of value-based health care.

Introduction: Primary care services are experiencing unprecedented demands. Occupational therapy is an allied health profession that supports health and care provision in primary care, using a timely and proactive approach. There has been a notable increase in occupational therapy roles across primary care services in the past decade; however, the mechanisms for evaluating outcomes and the wider impact of these services remain under-researched. The aim of value-based health care, a global transformative approach, is to establish better health outcomes for individuals and communities through addressing value in system-wide care. However, it is not yet clear how evaluation methods used within occupational therapy align to the principles of a value-based agenda.

Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed journal articles and gray literature written in English were included to identify outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of occupational therapy services provided in a primary care setting. Outcome evaluation methods used exclusively for the purpose of conducting research and not for capturing data within an occupational therapy primary care setting as part of routine clinical practice were excluded.

Methods: This review followed JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The literature search was undertaken during June and July 2022. The following databases were searched from their earliest dates of availability: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Scopus, AMED, and Web of Science. Two reviewers extracted data, supported by use of an extraction form developed by the reviewers. Findings were mapped using a framework developed based on key principles of value-based health care.

Results: From 2394 articles, 16 eligible studies were included in the review. Of these, 9 were quantitative and 7 were of mixed methods design. Studies were from the UK, USA, Sweden, Spain, and Canada. The occupational therapy services represented were mainly heterogeneous. Four services were part of multidisciplinary programs of care and 12 services were specific to occupational therapy. Identified outcome evaluation methods broadly aligned to principles of value-based health care, with most alignment noted for measures demonstrating the aim of establishing better health. A wide range of evaluation methods were described to address both individual-level and service-level outcomes, with the use of patient-reported outcome measures identified in 13 studies. To capture patient experience, most studies reported a variety of methods. The aim of reducing the per capita cost of health care was least represented in the literature.

Conclusion: This scoping review highlights a multifaceted but inconsistent approach to measuring the outcomes of occupational therapy provided in primary care. This has implications for establishing effectiveness and capturing data at scale to assist with wider planning of care and to enable the profession to demonstrate its contribution to value-based health care.

Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/hnaq4/.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初级医疗中职业治疗师使用的基于价值的成果评估方法:范围界定综述。
目的:本范围界定综述旨在了解职业治疗师如何评估他们在初级医疗中提供的服务的结果。这些证据与已确定的成果评估方法如何与以价值为基础的医疗保健原则保持一致有关:初级医疗服务正面临着前所未有的需求。职业疗法是一种专职医疗职业,它采用及时、主动的方法为初级医疗保健提供健康和护理支持。在过去十年中,职业疗法在基层医疗服务中的作用显著增加;然而,对这些服务的成果和更广泛影响的评估机制仍然研究不足。基于价值的医疗保健是一种全球性的变革方法,其目的是通过在全系统的医疗保健中实现价值,为个人和社区创造更好的健康成果。然而,目前尚不清楚职业疗法中使用的评估方法如何与基于价值的议程原则保持一致:纳入标准:纳入同行评议的英文期刊文章和灰色文献,以确定职业治疗师用于评估在初级医疗环境中提供的职业治疗服务的有效性和影响的结果评估方法。结果评估方法仅用于开展研究,而不是作为常规临床实践的一部分在职业治疗基层医疗机构中获取数据,因此不包括在内:本综述采用 JBI 的方法进行范围界定综述。文献检索于 2022 年 6 月至 7 月进行。从最早可用日期开始检索以下数据库:Cochrane Library、Ovid 的 MEDLINE、Ovid 的 Embase、EBSCOhost 的 CINAHL、Scopus、AMED 和 Web of Science。两名审稿人在使用审稿人制定的提取表的支持下提取数据。根据基于价值的医疗保健的关键原则制定的框架对研究结果进行了映射:从 2394 篇文章中,有 16 项符合条件的研究被纳入综述。其中,9 项为定量研究,7 项为混合方法设计。研究来自英国、美国、瑞典、西班牙和加拿大。所代表的职业治疗服务主要是异质性的。四项服务是多学科护理计划的一部分,12 项服务是专门针对职业治疗的。已确定的结果评估方法大致符合以价值为基础的医疗保健原则,其中最符合以建立更好的健康为目标的措施。有 13 项研究采用了患者报告的结果测量方法,并介绍了针对个人层面和服务层面结果的多种评估方法。为了解患者体验,大多数研究报告了各种方法。降低人均医疗成本的目标在文献中最少:本范围界定综述强调了衡量初级医疗中职业疗法成果的多方面但不一致的方法。这对确定有效性和获取大规模数据以协助更广泛的护理规划以及使该行业能够证明其对以价值为基础的医疗保健的贡献具有重要意义:开放科学框架 https://osf.io/hnaq4/。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
期刊最新文献
Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review. Parents' and guardians' experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder diagnostic services for their children: a qualitative systematic review. Evidence on the accreditation of health professionals' education in the WHO Africa region: a scoping review protocol. Barriers and facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries: a scoping review protocol. Supporting professional practice transition in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1