A qualitative investigation of influences on occupational therapists’ research involvement in Ireland

Background:

To fulfil the desire for evidence-based practice, there is impetus for occupational therapy (OT) to make research a priority and to encourage research engagement.

Purpose:

This study’s aim was to explore occupational therapists’ reasons for and for not getting involved in research and to determine potential barriers and enablers to engaging in research.

Methods:

Three focus groups were conducted with five participants each. Data were thematically analysed.

Findings:

Occupational therapists’ reasons for expressing interest in getting involved in research were having an interest in the condition and/or the symptoms being studied; promoting client support and service development; and ‘upskilling’. Three themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) motivation to get involved in research can be influenced; (2) ‘firefighting’: barriers and organisational culture; and (3) The nature of research needs consideration from an occupational therapist perspective.

Implications:

Findings suggest that though occupational therapists are able to get involved in research, it remains that there are difficulties in doing so (e.g., organisational culture); and such difficulties may outweigh both reasons and enablers to such involvement. Reasons for expressing interest, enablers, barriers and the relationships among them warrant further investigation and consideration with respect to involving occupational therapists in research.

A gardening and woodwork group in mental health: a step towards recovery

Purpose

This paper aims to evaluate the impact of an eight-week gardening and woodwork group programme on individuals’ recovery goals in an adult community mental health setting.

Design/methodology/approach

Seven individuals participated in the research. The programme was designed and facilitated by two occupational therapists (the authors) and one horticulture and trade skills facilitator. The goal attainment scale was used as a quantitative outcome measure as it allowed individuals to collaboratively set occupation-focused recovery-oriented goals. Due to the small sample size, descriptive statistics were used to analyse this data. Qualitative feedback was gathered through participant feedback forms when the programme ended.

Findings

Quantitative findings indicate positive results for individuals’ progression towards their recovery goals, with six out of seven participants either achieving or exceeding their goals. One person who attended only one out of eight groups had “worse than expected” goal achievement.

Originality/value

While there is evidence for the use of gardening and woodwork group therapy in mental health settings, most studies have relied on symptom-focused questionnaires or qualitative results rather than quantifiable recovery-oriented measures (Cipriani et al., 2017; Kamioka et al., 2014; Parkinson et al., 2011). It is hoped that this paper begins to bridge that gap and also outlines how recovery principles, gardening and woodwork can be incorporated into occupational therapy group programmes. This is of particular merit during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a greater need for group intervention in outdoor settings, where social distancing can be comfortably facilitated.

Barriers and facilitators of clinician and researcher collaborations: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The poor translation of research findings into routine clinical practice is common in all areas of healthcare. Having a better understanding of how researchers and clinicians experience engagement in and with research, their working relationships and expectations of each other, may be one way to help to facilitate collaborative partnerships and therefore increase successful translation of research into clinical practice.

AIMS

To explore the views of clinical and research staff about their experiences of working together during research projects and identify the facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

We conducted four focus groups with 18 participants - clinicians, researchers and those with a dual clinical-research role, recruited from one mental health Trust and one university. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eight themes were identified under the headings of two research questions 1) Barriers and facilitators of either engaging in or with research from the perspective of clinical staff, with themes of understanding the benefits of the research; perceived knowledge and personal qualities of researchers; lack of time and organisational support to be involved in and implement research; and lack of feedback about progress and outcome of research. 2) Barriers and facilitators for engaging with clinicians when conducting research, from the perspective of researchers, with themes of understanding what clinicians need to know and how they need to feel to engage with research; demonstrating an understanding of the clinician's world; navigating through the clinical world; and demands of the researcher role.

CONCLUSION

There was agreement between clinicians and researchers about the barriers and facilitators for engaging clinicians in research. Both groups identified that it was the researcher's responsibility to form and maintain good working relationships. Better support for researchers in their role calls for training in communication skills and bespoke training to understand the local context in which research is taking place.