Identifying educational priorities for occupational therapy students to prepare for mental health practice in Australia and New Zealand: Opinions of practising occupational therapists

Abstract

The priority list developed as part of this project provides additional information to support the review of occupational therapy curricula across Australia and New Zealand to ensure that new graduates are optimally prepared for mental health practice.

Learning from consumers: An eDelphi study of Australian mental health consumers’ priorities for recovery‐oriented curricula

“…The priorities of Australian and New Zealand occupational therapists for mental health curricula identified in Scanlan et al's (2015) study stand in stark contrast to the priorities of consumers identified in this study. This misalignment is consistent with the concerns raised by Mahboub and Milbourn (2015) in their invited response to Scanlan et al Occupational therapists appear to prioritise occupational therapy professional knowledge and clinical skills as they are applied in a mental health setting.…”

“…Two particular areas of misalignment are engagement in therapy, and risk assessment and management. The idea of the ‘challenging consumer” who is difficult to engage, and the need for risk assessment and management were regarded as essential priorities by occupational therapists in Scanlan et al . 's study.…”

“…A specific type of Delphi known as the 'Policy Delphi', which seeks the opinions of a group of experts to generate a list of priorities for the topic of interest (Keeney et al, 2011) was adopted. This has previously been shown to be a useful method for identifying educational priorities (Bissett, Cusick & Adamson, 2002;Scanlan et al, 2015). The study was conducted online and is therefore described as an eDelphi.…”

“…Only one essential priority refers to recovery: “recovery, hope‐inspiring practice and recovery‐orientation of services” (Scanlan et al ., , p. 293) and this was the 23rd ranked priority. Trauma‐informed care was rated optional and ranked 59 (Scanlan et al . ), although it is considered an essential approach within a recovery‐orientation in mental health.…”

“…An invited consumer response to Scanlan et al . 's () study raised some important concerns (Mahboub & Milbourn, ). These included a failure to critique the term mental illness when there is no consensus about its meaning and many consumers find it problematic; the concept of functional implications of mental illness not being aligned with contemporary understandings of recovery; the use of the term goal setting rather than an emphasis on connecting people to their personal dreams and ambitions; and insufficient attention to critical self‐reflection and reflexivity by therapists as crucial for recovery‐oriented practice (Mahboub & Milbourn).…”