Profiling the Research Activities of Canadian Occupational Therapy and Occupational Science Faculty Members

Abstract

Background. There is a lack of knowledge on the scope and nature of the research by faculty members in occupational science (OS) and/or occupational therapy (OT) programs in Canada. Purpose. To describe the research activities of faculty members in these programs and directions. Method. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 173 faculty members across all 14 Canadian OT that addressed: 1) research topics and methods, 2) populations, and 3) funding. Findings. Based on respondents ( N = 121), research is focused on a range of topics and populations with most conducting qualitative research. Many conduct research examining the effectiveness of interventions, with few respondents focused on OS research. Federal and provincial grants agencies were the largest source of funding. Implications. Research topics studied were not always proportional to practice although emerging areas were being investigated that can expand the evidence base and scope of practice. Despite limited occupation-specific funding options, respondents were accessing funding from varied sources. Collaborations among faculty members, clinicians, and individuals with lived experience can create priorities for future OS and/or OT research in Canada.

An international study of diversity in occupational therapy research– A bibliographic review of English research literature

“…Most of the studies in this review were mapped to the evidence‐based practice (80%) and participation in everyday life priority areas (71%). This was consistent with findings from Jarus et al (2023) who did not use the WFOT research priorities but identified participation (63.6%) as the most commonly reported research area for Canadian occupational therapy researchers. However, alignment with some of the other research priorities was low.…”

“…Smith (2017) suggests that occupational therapy should be looking forward to the next 100 years in terms of technology development as more will become available to support participation for people with disability. Yet only 14% of publications in this review were mapped to technology, consistent with the 12.6% of articles identified by Jarus et al (2023). Working with communities has also been identified as an area for occupational therapy practice where communities can be assisted to improve their health and wellbeing (Lauckner et al, 2019) but only 10% of publications in this review were mapped to community development.…”

“…Finally, despite research about the effectiveness of occupational interventions being ranked the highest priority by the participants in the Delphi study (World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2017), only 8.5% of the publications in this review were directly concerned with evaluating the effectiveness of interventions via randomised control trials or longitudinal cohort studies with interventions. Jarus et al (2023) also identified that qualitative methods were the most commonly reported by Canadian academics (71.7%) using methods such as interviews and focus groups, and quantitative methods (51.2%) using methods such as reviews, surveys and cross-sectional designs. These broadly align with the results from this review.…”

“…Jarus et al (2023) also identified that qualitative methods were the most commonly reported by Canadian academics (71.7%) using methods such as interviews and focus groups, and quantitative methods (51.2%) using methods such as reviews, surveys and cross‐sectional designs. These broadly align with the results from this review.…”