Assessment of motor and process skills in Danish occupational therapy practice.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-10 DOI:10.1080/11038128.2023.2220910
Annette Forsberg Jørgensen Vinge, Mette Egelund Mondrup, Kristina Tomra Nielsen, Eva Ejlersen Wæhrens
{"title":"Assessment of motor and process skills in Danish occupational therapy practice.","authors":"Annette Forsberg Jørgensen Vinge, Mette Egelund Mondrup, Kristina Tomra Nielsen, Eva Ejlersen Wæhrens","doi":"10.1080/11038128.2023.2220910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The demand for employment of standardized evaluations is increasing. In Denmark, approximately 25% of all occupational therapists (OTs) are trained to use the standardized occupational therapy instrument Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS).</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate the use of AMPS within Danish occupational therapy practice and determine factors supporting or hindering the use.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among OTs from various settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 844 calibrated OTs participated in the survey. Of these, 540 (64%) met the inclusion criteria and 486 (90%) completed the questionnaire. Forty percent of the participants used the AMPS in a standardized way during a one-month period and 56% reported being dissatisfied with the low number of AMPS evaluations completed. Five supporting and nine hindering factors were found to significantly influence the use of standardized AMPS evaluations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions/significance: </strong>Despite demands for standardized evaluations, the AMPS is not regularly used in a standardized way within Danish occupational therapy practice. Use of AMPS in clinical practice seems to be facilitated by an acknowledgement from the management and the OT's ability to develop habits and routines. Time restraints were reported, however, time to conduct evaluations was not a statistically significant influencing factor.</p>","PeriodicalId":49570,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2023.2220910","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The demand for employment of standardized evaluations is increasing. In Denmark, approximately 25% of all occupational therapists (OTs) are trained to use the standardized occupational therapy instrument Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS).

Aims: To investigate the use of AMPS within Danish occupational therapy practice and determine factors supporting or hindering the use.

Material and methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among OTs from various settings.

Results: Overall, 844 calibrated OTs participated in the survey. Of these, 540 (64%) met the inclusion criteria and 486 (90%) completed the questionnaire. Forty percent of the participants used the AMPS in a standardized way during a one-month period and 56% reported being dissatisfied with the low number of AMPS evaluations completed. Five supporting and nine hindering factors were found to significantly influence the use of standardized AMPS evaluations.

Conclusions/significance: Despite demands for standardized evaluations, the AMPS is not regularly used in a standardized way within Danish occupational therapy practice. Use of AMPS in clinical practice seems to be facilitated by an acknowledgement from the management and the OT's ability to develop habits and routines. Time restraints were reported, however, time to conduct evaluations was not a statistically significant influencing factor.

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
丹麦职业治疗实践中运动和过程技能的评估。
背景:标准化评价人员的就业需求日益增加。在丹麦,大约25%的职业治疗师(OTs)接受过使用标准化职业治疗工具运动和过程技能评估(AMPS)的培训。目的:调查丹麦职业治疗实践中AMPS的使用情况,并确定支持或阻碍其使用的因素。材料和方法:对来自不同背景的OTs进行在线横断面调查。结果:总共有844名经校准的OTs参与了调查。其中540例(64%)符合纳入标准,486例(90%)完成问卷调查。在一个月的时间里,40%的参与者以标准化的方式使用了AMPS, 56%的人对完成的AMPS评估数量少表示不满。发现5个支持因素和9个阻碍因素显著影响标准化AMPS评价的使用。结论/意义:尽管要求标准化评估,但在丹麦的职业治疗实践中,AMPS并没有以标准化的方式定期使用。在临床实践中,AMPS的使用似乎得到了管理层和OT培养习惯和常规能力的认可。报告了时间限制,但是,进行评价的时间在统计上并不是一个显著的影响因素。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
15.80%
发文量
45
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy is an internationally well-recognized journal that aims to provide a forum for occupational therapy research worldwide and especially the Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy welcomes: theoretical frameworks, original research reports emanating from quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies, literature reviews, case studies, presentation and evaluation of instruments, evaluation of interventions, learning and teaching in OT, letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Occupational therapy's oversight: How science veiled our humanity. Defining the future of occupational therapy: A concept analysis of leadership development. Fostering social participation among older adults: Perspectives of stakeholders. 'A new sense of my former self' - transforming the self through vocational rehabilitation for people with acquired brain injury. Psychometric properties of the arabic version of occupational value with pre-defined ítems.
×
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