Professional development training preferences of occupational therapists working with older adults in Australia: A discrete choice experiment

Frailty knowledge, training and barriers to frailty management: A national cross-sectional survey of health professionals in Australia

OBJECTIVE(S)

To understand Australian health professionals' perceptions of their knowledge and previous training about frailty, as well as barriers to frailty assessment and management in their practice.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was developed and distributed to health professionals (medical, nursing and allied health) engaged in clinical practice in Australia through convenience and snowball sampling techniques from March to May 2022. The survey consisted of five sections: frailty training and knowledge; confidence in recognising and managing adults with frailty; the importance and relevance of frailty; barriers to assessing and managing frailty in practice; and interest in further frailty training. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The survey was taken by 736 health professionals. Less than half of respondents (44%, 321/733) reported receiving any training on frailty, with 14% (105/733) receiving training specifically focussed on frailty. Most respondents (78%, 556/712) reported 'good' or 'fair' understanding of frailty. The majority (64%, 448/694) reported being 'fairly' or 'somewhat' confident with identifying frailty. Almost all respondents (>90%) recognised frailty as having an important impact on outcomes and believed that there are beneficial interventions for frailty. Commonly reported barriers to frailty assessment in practice included 'lack of defined protocol for managing frailty' and 'lack of consensus about which frailty assessment tool to use'. Most respondents (88%, 521/595) were interested in receiving further education on frailty, with a high preference for online training.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest frailty is important to health professionals in Australia, and there is a need for and interest in further frailty education.

Supporting rehabilitation stakeholders in making service delivery decisions: a rapid review of multi-criteria decision analysis methods

PURPOSE

This review aimed to synthesize knowledge about multi-criteria decision analysis methods for supporting rehabilitation service design and delivery decisions, including: (1) describing the use of these methods within rehabilitation, (2) identifying decision types that can be supported by these methods, (3) describing client and family involvement, and (4) identifying implementation considerations.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review in collaboration with a knowledge partner, searching four databases for peer-reviewed articles reporting primary research. We extracted relevant data from included studies and synthesized it descriptively and with conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 717 records, of which 54 met inclusion criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis methods were primarily used to understand the strength of clients' and clinicians' preferences (n = 44), and five focused on supporting decision making. Shared decision making with stakeholders was evident in only two studies. Clients and families were mostly engaged in data collection and sometimes in selecting the relevant criteria. Good practices for supporting external validity were inconsistently reported. Implementation considerations included managing cognitive complexity and offering authentic choices.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-criteria decision analysis methods are promising for better understanding client and family preferences and priorities across rehabilitation professions, contexts, and caseloads. Further work is required to use these methods in shared decision making, for which increased use of qualitative methods and stakeholder engagement is recommended. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMulti-criteria decision analysis methods are promising for evidence-based, shared decision making for rehabilitation.However, most studies to date have focused on estimating stakeholder preferences, not supporting shared decision making.Cognitive complexity and modelling authentic and realistic decision choices are major barriers to implementation.Stakeholder-engagement and qualitative methods are recommended to address these barriers.

Comparing Web-Based and In-Person Educational Workshops for Canadian Occupational Therapists and Understanding Their Learning Experiences: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

The Do-Live-Well (DLW) framework is an occupation-focused health promotion approach. Occupational therapists (OTs) have been interested in training opportunities regarding this framework. Traditionally, in-person continuing educational interventions are the main way that OTs obtain knowledge, but web-based learning has become popular among health care professionals. However, its effectiveness and learners' experience in web-based learning have not been well-studied in occupational therapy education.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the web-based and in-person educational DLW workshops for Canadian OTs and to understand their experiences in both workshop types.

METHODS

An explanatory sequential mixed methods study design was used, where quantitative data were collected first, then qualitative data were used to explain the quantitative findings. A quasi-experimental design and interpretative description methodology were used in the quantitative and qualitative phases, respectively.

RESULTS

Quantitative results were as follows: a total of 43 OTs completed pre-, post-, and follow-up evaluations (in-person group: 21/43, 49%; web-based group: 22/43, 51%). Practice settings of the participants varied, including geriatric, hospital, long-term, mental health, pediatric, and primary settings. The primary outcome was as follows: there were no statistically significant differences in knowledge changes at the 3 time points (P=.57 to P=.99) between the groups. In the web-based group, the knowledge scores at follow-up were lower compared with the posttest results, meaning that knowledge gain was reduced over time (P=.001). The secondary outcomes were as follows: there were statistically significant differences between the groups in factors influencing DLW adoption at posttest (P=.001) and in satisfaction with the workshop (P<.001) at posttest in favor of the in-person group. Qualitative results were as follows: a total of 18 OTs (9/18, 50% from each group) participated in an individual interview. Five themes were identified regarding learners' workshop experiences: relevance to their practices and interests may improve learning, a familiar learning environment may facilitate learning, synchronous in-person interaction is valuable in the learning process, ease of access to learning should be considered, and flexibility in web-based learning can be both beneficial and challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantitative results of this study reported no difference in knowledge acquisition between the in-person and web-based groups, indicating that web-based education is as effective as in-person workshops. However, participants' satisfaction with the workshop was statistically significantly higher for the in-person workshop. The qualitative findings described the participants' perceived benefits and challenges of each educational format. The participants in both the web-based and in-person workshop groups valued in-person interactions in learning, but the participants in the web-based workshop group expressed web-based learning lacked in-person-like interactions. Thus, adding synchronous in-person interactions to web-based learning may improve learners' educational experiences in web-based occupational therapy and continuing education.