Scope of practice boundary violation in occupational therapy: An online survey of practitioners' perceptions in India

K. Mani
{"title":"Scope of practice boundary violation in occupational therapy: An online survey of practitioners' perceptions in India","authors":"K. Mani","doi":"10.4103/ijoth.ijoth_44_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Occupational therapy (OT) practice in India is yet to be regulated at the national level. This presents a significant challenge to the OT community in India as it would be difficult for them to defend themselves if other professionals violate the scope of practice (SOP) boundaries. Objectives: The aim is to explore the views of occupational therapists (OTs) related to the issue of SOP boundary violation in OT practice in India. Study Design: An online survey research design was chosen to conduct this study. A 10-item electronic survey (9 with response options and one open ended) was developed based on the research question. Methods: An online survey link generated through SurveyMonkey was E-mailed to 760 OTs in India, identified through convenient sampling. The survey link was also shared on four WhatsApp Messenger groups (TNAIOTA Official Group, OTist Group, Clinic OT, and IPOTPDG1) with many Indian OTs (snowball sampling). Data were collected from January 29, to February 29, 2020. Results: The number of responses received was 126. One hundred and nine (87%) respondents believed that other professionals encroach OT's SOP boundaries knowingly or unknowingly. This belief is strong among all OTs across the nation, regardless of gender and practice experience. Conclusions: Many OTs in India believe that individuals belonging to other professions step into the domain of OT knowingly or unknowingly. Enacting an OT practice legislation, establishing a regulatory body at the national level and increasing them at state levels, endorsing an official SOP document, educating stakeholders, and engaging in awareness promotion initiatives would help mitigate the issue to a great extent. Ongoing and strategic efforts by the OT community in India are warranted.","PeriodicalId":75019,"journal":{"name":"The Indian journal of occupational therapy","volume":"13 1","pages":"15 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Indian journal of occupational therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijoth.ijoth_44_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Occupational therapy (OT) practice in India is yet to be regulated at the national level. This presents a significant challenge to the OT community in India as it would be difficult for them to defend themselves if other professionals violate the scope of practice (SOP) boundaries. Objectives: The aim is to explore the views of occupational therapists (OTs) related to the issue of SOP boundary violation in OT practice in India. Study Design: An online survey research design was chosen to conduct this study. A 10-item electronic survey (9 with response options and one open ended) was developed based on the research question. Methods: An online survey link generated through SurveyMonkey was E-mailed to 760 OTs in India, identified through convenient sampling. The survey link was also shared on four WhatsApp Messenger groups (TNAIOTA Official Group, OTist Group, Clinic OT, and IPOTPDG1) with many Indian OTs (snowball sampling). Data were collected from January 29, to February 29, 2020. Results: The number of responses received was 126. One hundred and nine (87%) respondents believed that other professionals encroach OT's SOP boundaries knowingly or unknowingly. This belief is strong among all OTs across the nation, regardless of gender and practice experience. Conclusions: Many OTs in India believe that individuals belonging to other professions step into the domain of OT knowingly or unknowingly. Enacting an OT practice legislation, establishing a regulatory body at the national level and increasing them at state levels, endorsing an official SOP document, educating stakeholders, and engaging in awareness promotion initiatives would help mitigate the issue to a great extent. Ongoing and strategic efforts by the OT community in India are warranted.
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
在职业治疗实践边界侵犯的范围:从业者的看法在印度的在线调查
背景:印度的职业治疗(OT)实践尚未在国家层面进行监管。这对印度的OT社区提出了重大挑战,因为如果其他专业人员违反了实践范围(SOP)的界限,他们很难为自己辩护。目的:目的是探讨印度职业治疗师(OTs)对职业治疗师实践中SOP边界违规问题的看法。研究设计:采用在线调查研究设计进行本研究。根据研究问题,开发了一个10项电子调查(9项有回答选项,1项开放式)。方法:通过SurveyMonkey生成的在线调查链接通过电子邮件发送给印度的760个OTs,通过方便的抽样确定。调查链接也被分享到四个WhatsApp Messenger群(TNAIOTA官方群、OTist群、诊所OT和IPOTPDG1)上,许多印度OT(雪球抽样)。数据收集时间为2020年1月29日至2月29日。结果:收到回复126份。109名(87%)受访者认为其他专业人员有意或无意地侵犯了OT的SOP界限。这种信念在全国所有的执业医师中都很强烈,无论性别和执业经验如何。结论:印度的许多OT认为,属于其他职业的个人有意或无意地进入OT领域。制定OT实践立法,在国家层面建立监管机构,并在州层面增加监管机构,认可官方SOP文件,教育利益相关者,并参与意识提升活动,将有助于在很大程度上缓解这个问题。印度OT社区正在进行的战略性努力是有必要的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quality of Occupational Therapy Research in India - A Descriptive Review. Understanding daily routine and schedule of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A qualitative study 35th WFOT council meeting, world ot day and AIOTA's fellowship program Occupational therapy interventions survey study part I: Practices and types of interventions used in daily practice by indian versus global occupational therapists Attitudes of Indian undergraduate occupational therapy students toward mental health and psychiatry: A cross-sectional survey
×
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