Search

General community occupational therapists (OTs) work with clients experiencing chronic and complex conditions, some living with one or more comorbid common mental health issues (such as anxiety, depression or distress). This study aimed to describe the perspectives of general community OTs of their engagement with clients experiencing mental health issues; their perceptions of the implementation of routine screening in their practice, and the knowledge, skills and support they need to identify and support their clients' mental health needs. Six focus groups were undertaken with general community OTs (n = 21) from three Australian health services in rural, regional and metropolitan settings, between December 2020 and January 2021. Data were analysed using a team‐based framework approach. Three key themes were identified: (1) OTs' experiences working with people with mental health issues; (2) impacts of engaging with clients experiencing mental health issues on OTs; and (3) implementing routine mental health screening in general community OT practice. The latter had two sub‐themes: (i) identified considerations and (ii) education and system‐level support needs. General community OTs frequently work with clients with mental health issues. These experiences impact their practice in multiple ways. This study highlights opportunities for integrating routine mental health screening into general community OT practice and identifies the system and educational development required to support this enhancement to practice. Supporting general community OTs to routinely screen for mental health issues will enhance collaborative client‐centred care. Our findings may also have implications for other community‐based health professionals and services, particularly those delivered in clients' homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informal interprofessional interactions have gained interest in recent interprofessional care, education, health services and social sciences research literature. Some of the established benefits associated with these interactions include enhanced communication, teamwork, research translation and the provision of safer care. Limited evidence about how informal interprofessional interactions are perceived by the allied health workforce, exists. The survey conducted at a large Australian health service explored allied health clinicians' perceptions of the benefits, challenges and enablers of informal interprofessional interactions and their recommendations to improve opportunities for these workplace interactions. Sixty-four responses were analysed descriptively (for close-ended questions) and using a framework analysis approach, informed by Bourdieu's social space theory (for open-ended questions). Perceived benefits were aligned with three themes: teams and organisations, individual clinicians and service-users. Challenges to, and enablers of, informal interprofessional interactions were identified according to five themes: socio-cultural practices, physical environment, timing-related factors, individual and organisational factors. Participant recommendations to increase opportunities for informal interprofessional workplace interactions for allied health reflected three of the aforementioned themes: socio-cultural practices, physical environment and organisational factors. This theoretically-informed analysis may aid in the development of strategies to support these types of workplace interactions and realise the benefits identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Identifying priority research topics that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders should maximize research investment. Aim: To identify priorities for health education research. Methods: A three-stage sequential mixed methods study was conducted. Priorities for health education research were identified through a qualitative survey with 104 students, patients, academics, and clinicians across five health sciences and 12 professions (stage 1). These findings were analyzed using framework analysis and transposed into a quantitative survey whereby 780 stakeholders rated and ranked the identified priorities. Descriptive statistics identified priorities, exploratory factor analysis grouped priorities and differences between stakeholders were determined using Mann–Whitney U tests (stage 2). Six individual or group interviews with 16 participants (stage 3) further explicated the results from previous stages. Results: Of 30 priorities identified, the top were: how best to ensure students develop the required skills for work; how to promote resiliency and well-being in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares students for work. For the majority of priorities, no significant differences were found between different stakeholder groups. Conclusions: These findings will be used to inform health educational research strategy both locally and nationally. Further research should explore if setting priorities can be translated effectively into education research policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]