Occupational therapists’ perspectives on an evidence-based,client-centered assistive technology intervention

Abstract

Introduction:

Reviews within the field of assistive technology have shown that a client-centered approach is important for user satisfaction, and that assistive technology service delivery should be evidence-based, systematic, and structured. However, client-centered instruments and systematic, structured models are not used consistently. As part of a larger research project, an evidence-based, client-centered assistive technology service delivery process was developed and piloted. The purpose of this study was to investigate occupational therapists’ perspectives on this evidence-based, client-centered assistive technology intervention.

Method:

Ten occupational therapists, from two Danish municipalities, participated in focus groups. Data were analyzed based on a hermeneutic approach.

Results:

Three themes emerged from the analysis: a more refined collaboration with clients; advantages of using theoretical frameworks, structured models and instruments and challenges in using the intervention.

Conclusion:

By using the evidence-based, client-centered intervention, the occupational therapists found that the collaboration with the clients was refined—more emphasis was placed on shared responsibility. They found that the intervention was time-efficient in the long run; however, there seems to be a particular challenge in designing services that are inclusive of clients with cognitive limitations.

Keywords

Evidence-based practice occupational therapy self-help devices

Introduction

It is an inherent assumption within occupational therapy that occupational engagement is essential for human well-being and that everyone should have access, and the opportunity and resources, to engage in occupations that contribute positively to their well-being (World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2019a). Assistive technology (AT) is used by occupational therapists to enable engagement in occupations for people with disabilities (World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2019b).

In the current study AT is defined as “Any item, piece of equipment, or product system whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” (Cook et al., 2020: 4). However, there is no universally agreed definition of AT, definitions differ depending on their purpose and scope (World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, (UNICEF), 2022). Cook et al. (2020) have argued that ATs can be considered on a continuum from mainstream to commercially available to custom-made ATs. Mainstream technologies are produced for and used by the mass market while those that are made to measure are often custom-built to meet the specific needs of a single individual with disabilities. Increasingly, individuals with disability can use mainstream technologies such as computer technologies as well as information and communication technologies to compensate for functional limitations. Along the continuum are the commercially available devices, which are produced to compensate for reduced functioning in individuals with disabilities, and they are often used with few or no modifications. The current study focuses on commercially available ATs, such as powered scooters, wheelchairs, shower toilets, grab bars, etc.

Both in Scandinavia and globally, many occupational therapists are engaged in AT service delivery (Ergoterapeutforeningen, 2015; World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2019b). In 2015, the Danish Association of Occupational Therapists conducted a survey that showed that approximately two-thirds of all occupational therapists in Denmark are engaged in AT service delivery (Ergoterapeutforeningen, 2015). In Denmark, most ATs are cost-free for individuals with disabilities and the municipalities are obligated by law to offer ATs to people in need. Applications are typically evaluated by an occupational therapist, based on a written request, and usually supplemented with a home visit (Lassen et al., 2019). Despite the fact that AT service delivery is an essential part of occupational therapy and many occupational therapists are involved in it, the evidence-based knowledge concerning the delivery process is still sparse (Brandt et al., 2014, 2015, 2020; Larsson Ranada and Lidström, 2019; Socialstyrelsen, 2015).

Literature review

In recent years, a number of literature reviews and systematic reviews have been published within the area (Brandt et al., 2014, 2015, 2020; Larsson Ranada and Lidström, 2019; Socialstyrelsen, 2015). These reviews have diverse study populations and foci, ranging from studying the effects of various AT service delivery processes (Brandt et al., 2020) to an exploration of the impact of the delivery on satisfaction with AT in relation to daily occupations (Larsson Ranada and Lidström, 2019). Notwithstanding the diverse study populations and foci, the reviews point to two elements. One element that all the reviews suggest is that a client-centered approach in the service delivery process seems to positively impact user satisfaction with the AT itself and with the service delivery (Brandt et al., 2014, 2015, 2020; Larsson Ranada and Lidström, 2019; Socialstyrelsen, 2015). In the current study, the term “client” is defined broadly as both the person applying for ATs and the client constellation, which is others who live with, work with, or are closely connected to the person applying for the AT. However only those who experience issues with occupational performance in relation to interaction with the person applying are considered to be part of the client constellation (Fisher and Jones, 2017). Nevertheless, qualitative studies within the field of AT have shown that, although the occupational therapists are aware of and prefer a client-centered approach, they still find it difficult to practice in a client-centered way (Hedberg-Kristensson and Iwarsson, 2013). Qualitative research also shows that the clients experience the AT service delivery process to be multifaceted and complex (Gramstad et al., 2014) and that the experience of participation among clients is variable; while some clients feel that they participate actively in the entire service delivery process, others feel less involved (Gramstad et al., 2014; Hedberg-Kristensson et al., 2006).

The second element to which the reviews point is that a structured and systematic process conducted by professionals with experience in AT seems to be an important factor in an effective AT service delivery and in having satisfied users (Brandt et al., 2014, 2015, 2020; Larsson Ranada and Lidström, 2019; Socialstyrelsen, 2015). Some studies have suggested that, if service delivery is to be evidence-based, it should rely on systematic and structured procedures that should be based on guidelines, instruments, or models (Bernd et al., 2009; Triccas et al., 2019). Within this field, models are understood as symbolic representations of concepts that support and guide the AT service delivery (Bernd et al., 2009). Other studies have argued that there seems to be a lack of relevant instruments and models within the field (Friederich et al., 2010; Socialstyrelsen, 2015). However, Federici et al. (2014) have shown that, although the number of models has increased, the same growth has not been observed in service quality. This argument is supported by other studies and reports that suggest that instruments and systematic, structured models are not routinely used within the AT field (Brandt et al., 2014; Larsson Ranada and Lidström, 2019; Socialstyrelsen, 2015). There seems to be a lack of studies focusing on the application of an evidence-based, client-centered AT service delivery within occupational therapy practice.

An evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention

The current study is part of a larger project, in which an evidence-based, client-centered AT service delivery process that relied on structured models and instruments was developed and piloted in close cooperation with two Danish municipalities. The term AT service delivery process is in the current study defined as an intervention that “directly assists an individual with disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology” (Cook et al., 2020: 4). The AT service delivery process developed in the current study is hereafter referred to as the AT intervention.

The developed AT intervention was based on evidence-based practice—understood as the integration of the “best available research evidence,” “clinical experience,” and “knowledge and experiences of the clients” (Harvey and Kitson, 2015). These three elements of evidence-based practice were used as the basis for the development of the AT intervention (Harvey and Kitson, 2015). The “best available research evidence” was sourced through updated systematic reviews and literature reviews within the field (Brandt et al., 2014, 2015; Larsson Ranada and Lidström, 2019; Socialstyrelsen, 2015). “Knowledge and experiences of the clients” was obtained through a systematic review (Larsen et al., 2018) and a qualitative longitudinal study (Larsen et al., 2019, 2020)—both conducted as part of the larger project. Finally, the element of “clinical experience” was gained by the participation of practitioners, lecturers, experts, and researchers in the development of the AT intervention. Evidence-based practice has been criticized for focusing too much on experimental evidence, thereby overlooking individual needs, circumstances, and preferences (Greenhalgh et al., 2014; Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). It has therefore been argued that the success of evidence-based practice depends on informed, shared decision making with clients and on the acceptability and fit of the intervention to the local context (Greenhalgh et al., 2014). Thus, these elements informed and inspired the understanding of evidence-based practice applied to the current study.

The Occupational Therapy Intervention Process Model (OTIPM) was used as theoretical framework for the development of the AT intervention (Fisher, 2009). The model was chosen because the OTIPM has been used previously within the field of AT (Kassberg and Skär, 2008; Linden et al., 2010), and because studies have shown that the model can be used to guide an improvement process and lead to an integration of evidence-based knowledge in practice, with long-lasting achievements (Sirkka et al., 2014a, 2014b). In line with the OTIPM, the AT intervention entails the following three phases: evaluation and goal setting, intervention, and re-evaluation. Each phase comprises a number of steps, and each step contains a detailed explanation of: how the occupational therapists are to perform throughout this step, including descriptions of instruments and methods, along with questions to support the professional reasoning; what is to be achieved during this step; what is the result of this step; and lastly, how this step is documented (Fisher, 2009). During the evaluation and goalsetting phase, the focus was on establishing collaborative relationships between clients and therapists, and on the clients’ expressed need to engage in occupations with positive personal value. Structured instruments, such as Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment (IPPA) (Wessels et al., 2002) and non-standardized performance analysis (Fisher, 2009) were employed in this phase. During the intervention phase, emphasis was placed on enabling the clients to participate actively in choosing, modifying, and implementing of the AT into their valued occupations. Finally, in the re-evaluation, the focus was on the clients’ needs for further training, adjustment, or follow-up.

During the entire AT intervention, importance was placed on increasing the clients’ competence to participate in the process. This was done by enhancing the predictability of the process, for example, offering the clients verbal and written information about the AT intervention to enable them to understand the predictable aspects of the process, and explore and compare their expectations with their occupational therapists.

The evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention was developed and piloted in two Danish municipalities over a period of 10 months. As the current study focuses on the municipal occupational therapists’ perspectives on the AT intervention, the purpose is therefore to investigate the occupational therapists’ perspectives on the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention.

Method

A hermeneutical approach informed the study, inspired by Gadamer’s thinking on interpretation. This approach involved focusing on the participants’ generation of meaning and perspectives as revealed through the participants’ stories (Vandermause and Fleming, 2011), and understanding interpretation as a collaborative process between the reader and the text—a process of horizontal fusion (Dahlager and Fredslund, 2008). To gain insight into the occupational therapists’ generation of meaning and perspectives on the AT intervention, focus groups were used (Halkier, 2012). The focus group method was chosen because the occupational therapists’ comparisons, reflections, and discussions of experiences were expected to provide valuable insight into their stories concerning the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention (Halkier, 2012).

Study context

The study was conducted in cooperation with two Danish municipalities during the period 2015–2018. To ensure that the knowledge generated would be relevant in diverse settings, the selected municipalities varied according to, for example, number of inhabitants—one municipality had fewer than 25,000 inhabitants, while the other municipality had more than 100,000 inhabitants; size—one municipality was larger than 300 square kilometers while the other one was under 200 square kilometers; and type of district—one municipality was a rural district while the other was an urban district (Patton, 2015).

Participants

The participants in the focus groups were the occupational therapists who had participated in the overall project and in the pilot of the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention; each had piloted 2–3 cases. The occupational therapists were selected for the overall project based on the criteria of having an interest in and a motivation for engaging in developmental work. Eleven occupational therapists had participated in the overall project and conducted the piloting. They were therefore invited to participate; one occupational therapist was unavoidably prevented from attending on the day of the interview. Thus, 10 occupational therapists from the two municipalities participated in the focus groups; five from each. Two were men and eight women; they were between 27 and 61 years of age; their professional work experience ranged between four and 35 years; and their experience within the field of AT service delivery ranged between 2.5 and 24 years.

Ethical considerations

The participants were orally informed about the research study and were told that participation was voluntary and that they could opt out at any time without any adverse consequences for their employment. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Data collection

The data collection was carried out within 2 weeks of the end of the pilot. Interactions with the focus groups were held separately for the two municipalities to ensure situated knowledge generation (Harvey and Kitson, 2015). They were conducted in municipal settings and lasted approximately 2 hours each. The first author functioned as moderator, while the last author observed the dynamic interactions and took notes. A funnel-based approach with less structure in the beginning and more structure toward the end was used to investigate the participants’ perspectives on the AT intervention (Halkier, 2012). In accordance with focus group methodology, both focus groups opened with an introduction, explaining the purpose, and giving information about the focus group, the moderator role, and ethical issues (Halkier, 2012). Consistent with the funnel-based approach, the moderator started out by asking mainly descriptive questions (Spradley, 1979), with the purpose of gaining insight into the participants’ experiences of using the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention in specific situations. Later, the descriptive questions were followed by structured and contrast questions, where the participants were encouraged to discuss the revealed perspectives and opinions (Halkier, 2012; Morgan, 1997; Spradley, 1979). All types of questions were combined with various exercises (Halkier, 2012). As an example of an exercise, the participants were asked to write down some notes about how, in cases where the AT intervention was used, it impacted on delivery, and then share these stories and perspectives with the rest of the participants.

A moderator guide was used to structure the focus groups. In accordance with Gadamer’s hermeneutics, it was acknowledged in the current study that the researcher’s pre-understanding influenced the study. The researchers’ theoretically based pre-understanding, in the form of literature on client-centered practice, was used to inform the moderator guide (Cott, 2004; Fisher, 2009; Gupta and Taff, 2015; Hammell, 2013; Mroz et al., 2015; Sumsion and Law, 2006). However, an awareness that the pre-understanding also defines the boundaries of the researchers’ horizon of understanding also shaped the study, in that the methodological principle of becoming aware of one’s pre-understanding and placing it at risk during the interviews was also sought. As an example, before the focus groups, the first author engaged in a reflective process with the other authors where the experiential, empirical, and theoretical pre-understandings on which the questions were based were discussed. Furthermore, during interactions with the focus groups, both first and last authors were aware of and willing to adopt and pursue perspectives and themes that were brought up by the participants. The focus groups were carried out with an openness and sensitivity toward the participants’ situations and horizons and a flexibility to adapt the interview structure to reach a new understanding.

The interactions with focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by an experienced transcriber. As the transcribing process involves both interpretive and technical decisions, the transcriptions were based on a written guideline, including decisions on how to handle, for example, anonymity, breaks, overlapping speech, emotional outbursts, and intonations (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2015). The guideline was developed by the first author, and presented and discussed with the transcriber prior to the transcription.

Data analysis

The analysis was conducted as a process of decontextualization and recontextualization, inspired by Dahlager and Fredslund (2008), and carried out in four steps: general impression; identifying meaning-bearing units; operationalization; and, recontextualization and hermeneutic interpretation. In the first step: general impression, the whole text was read several times to get a preliminary understanding of the text. In the second step: identifying meaning-bearing units, the focus was on “what” the text says; this is described as a meaning categorization process. In this process, the meaning-bearing units were each assigned a theme. During the third step: operationalization, the themes identified at step two were ordered and operationalized, to determine whether some themes should be incorporated into one, or be divided into sub-themes. At the fourth step: recontextualization and hermeneutic interpretation, the focus was on how the text could be understood in relation to the study aim and relevant theory. During this step, the attention moved from the parts to the whole, from the individual to the general and from text to context. Thus, at this final step, the preliminary analysis became subject to a further analysis (Dahlager and Fredslund, 2008). The analysis was conducted by the first author and discussed with the other authors after the first step and again after the fourth and final step.

Results

Through the hermeneutic analysis, three themes emerged: a more refined collaboration with clients; advantages of using theoretical frameworks and structured models and instruments; and challenges in using the AT intervention. In the following section, the themes will be presented. The abbreviation (I) refers to interview, the numbers (1) and (2) to the two different municipalities, and the letters (A-E) refer to the letters assigned to the participants from the two municipalities.

A more refined collaboration with clients

The analysis of the text showed that, in providing the AT intervention, some of the occupational therapists found that their collaboration with clients changed. “They (the clients) are given some responsibility, in that they have to help define what they really want to be able to do again. I think that makes the interaction different (I, 1, B).” The quotation seems to indicate that, by involving the clients in the process, some of the occupational therapists felt that the collaboration was refined. They no longer considered themselves as experts in charge of the entire process; instead, the responsibility was shared between the occupational therapists and the clients. This led to enhanced collaboration, with the purpose of identifying strengths and problems regarding occupational performance and clarifying the clients’ motivation. “It is the clients that contribute to the formulation of (. . .) the occupational challenges that are most important for them and that we therefore must concentrate on (I, 2, C).” It was the impression of some of the occupational therapists that the use of client-centered instruments, such as the IPPA, refined the collaboration and facilitated a client-centered approach, in which the clients’ needs and desires were in focus: “I believe that the clients feel that they are heard and seen in a different way than in the traditional way. It has something to do with the IPPA form (I, 1, A).”

By using the client-centered and occupation-based models and instruments, some occupational therapists found that they gained a more nuanced understanding of the clients, and thereby a different side to, or some new aspects of, the clients that they had previously not noticed to the same extent: “In some cases, they (the clients) almost become the disease itself. We move away from that, because you become more aware of their resources (. . .) You get a much broader picture of them (. . .) a better insight into them as individuals and their abilities (I, 2, A).” The quotation seems to illustrate that it was the occupational therapists’ impression that, by applying the client-centered AT intervention, some of them felt that they gained a more nuanced picture of the clients and their everyday life.

Advantages of using theoretical frameworks, structured models, and instruments

By using the theoretical framework and structured methods, some of occupational therapists felt that they attained a more thorough evaluation of the clients’ situation and occupational performance problems. “It started with a height-adjustable toilet seat and, in many cases, it would have just been ordered for them. And then a request would come again, fourteen days later, and then again three weeks after, one month after, and three months after, about all the other small ATs. I think it would have been like that. Because it turned out there were a lot of other problems. I don’t think that this would have been picked up on the phone. (I, 1, C).” The quotation shows that the occupational therapists found that conducting the evaluations in a holistic way was time-efficient, as they were able to provide the clients at once with all the AT they needed, instead of on multiple occasions over a longer period. Time consumption was an important issue for the occupational therapists. In the short term, the AT intervention was time consuming; however, some of the occupational therapists considered it an investment in saving time and money in the long run.

Many of the occupational therapists found that the AT intervention enhanced their professional competences, which they experienced as satisfying. A participant gave the following example of enhancement of professional competences: “The scientific terms and ways to set things up as an occupational therapist, it isn’t usual practice, not for me, at least. So, in that way, I think you need to recall it again, but I think that it gives a boost to my professional competencies (I, 1, C).” The quotation shows that, previously, some of the procedures had been based on tacit knowledge, but by using theoretical frameworks, such as the OTIPM and non-standardized occupational performance analysis, the occupational therapists found that their professional assessment and reporting was strengthened. Instead of writing two lines about an observation, which would typically describe walking distance and breaks, the occupational therapists conducted an occupational performance analysis that focused on the quality of the performance. “The quality of walking (. . .) normally we would write two lines about how the client can walk hundred meters with four breaks and blah blah blah. Now we write more about quality and effort and safety and all that. If we reject the application and the client complains. Then I also think it gives a good description for the National Board of Appeal (I, 2, C).” By strengthening the professional assessment and reporting, some of the occupational therapists felt more comfortable and competent when discussing issues such as rejections of applications with other healthcare professionals, clients, or the appeal board.

Challenges in using the AT intervention

Overall, the occupational therapists experienced positive elements of working in an evidence-based, client-centered manner; however, they could also foresee some challenges, if it were to be implemented in the two municipalities. Some occupational therapists found that it was difficult to involve experienced clients in the process: “After all, some clients are trained in this system. They think: this person is from the municipality, so now I have to tell about this, that and the other (I, 2, C).” As expressed by the quotation, according to the occupational therapists, the difficulties arose mostly because some clients had specific expectations of the occupational therapists, as representatives of the municipalities, based on their previous experiences of municipal healthcare professionals.

Even though the occupational therapists found that their language changed to a more professional language, they also considered the terms used in the non-standardized performance analysis to be challenging. As expressed by the following quotation: “E: I’ve thought, when I’ve read the things I’ve written, well this makes sense. B: I thought the concepts used were very unfamiliar and they weren’t so descriptive (I, 2, E and B).” They were unsure if their colleagues who were not part of the project would be able to understand their documentation of the non-standardized performance analysis.

Regarding the various elements of the AT intervention and the target group, it was the occupational therapists’ experience that some of the elements, such as enhancing the predictability of the process, should be used on all applications, while others could be used when relevant: “It makes good sense if they are new clients, because then you make an assessment of their everyday lives in a different way, than if you just focused on the AT they have applied for (I, 2, B).” As shown by the quotation above, the occupational therapists considered that relevant cases would all be new cases. They also argued that it would be relevant in complex cases and ones where there had been an immense change in the client’s situation. However, they also found it difficult to use the AT intervention in some cases: “I think it should be individuals, who can participate actively (. . .). They must be cognitively well-functioning (I, 1, D).” The occupational therapists emphasized that it was challenging to use the AT intervention in cases where the client’s cognitive functioning was reduced or when the clients were not able to express themselves.

Discussion

By using the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention, the current pilot study found that the occupational therapists perceived the collaboration with the clients to be refined. They no longer considered themselves to be the experts in charge; instead, the responsibility was shared with the clients. Studies within occupational therapy have shown that occupational therapists consider client-centered practice to be of great importance for occupational therapy (Hedberg-Kristensson and Iwarsson, 2013; Kjellberg et al., 2012; Mortenson et al., 2013). It is exemplified by the Swedish study by Kjellberg et al. (2012), which shows that 87% of the participating occupational therapists considered a client-centered approach to be very important. However, other studies have shown that occupational therapists experience barriers when trying to comply with a client-centered approach (Hedberg-Kristensson and Iwarsson, 2013; Mortenson et al., 2013). In the present study, the occupational therapists found that the use of client-centered instruments and models facilitated a client-centered approach and enhanced the collaboration with the clients in the delivery process. However, a previous study within the field of AT has shown that the occupational therapists considered functional limitations, such as visual or hearing impairments or loss of speech, as significant barriers to involving clients in the service delivery process (Hedberg-Kristensson and Iwarsson, 2013). In the current study, the occupational therapists also found that it was challenging to use the AT intervention in cases where the clients were not able to express themselves. However, they also experienced that obstacles arose when the clients had specific expectations of the occupational therapists, based on their previous experiences with healthcare professionals. This finding is also supported by other studies within the field that argue that maybe challenges with involvement in the service delivery process sometimes can be explained by tacit expectations and implicit assumptions on the part of the clients (Gramstad et al., 2014; Hedberg-Kristensson et al., 2006).

It is well known that improvement or implementation work is time consuming (Harvey and Kitson, 2015); however, the current study’s findings support the study by Sirkka et al. (2014), in that both studies emphasize that improvement work saves time in the long run, in that all of the client’s needs are ascertained and addressed the first time, instead of on multiple occasions over a longer period of time. In addition, the occupational therapists in the current study also considered the time spent to be an investment in saving time and money in the long run. Some of the occupational therapists in the current study found that, by offering the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention, they gained a broader and more nuanced picture of the clients and their situation. By using theoretical frameworks and structured methods and instruments, some of them perceived their professional assessment and reporting to be strengthened, which led them to feel more competent when discussing issues with other healthcare professionals or clients. Our findings are in accordance with the study by Sirkka et al. (2014). Although it is not within the AT field, it focuses on occupational therapists’ experiences of participating in long-term improvement work based on the OTIPM. The current study also found that the occupational therapists’ focus on occupational therapy and occupations was strengthened through the intervention. Given that occupation creates the foundation or the core base of occupational therapy (Fisher, 2009), Fisher (2013) has argued that it should also be the foundation of both occupational therapy services and professional reasoning. To allow the profession’s unique focus on occupations to guide our participants’ professional reasoning, we used the conceptual model OTIPM as inspiration for the development of the intervention (Fisher, 2009).

In the current study, the occupational therapists found it challenging to use the evidence-based, client-centered intervention in cases where the client’s cognitive functioning was reduced. This finding is in accordance with previous studies that show that healthcare professionals find it challenging to develop services that involve people with cognitive impairments (Hedberg-Kristensson and Iwarsson, 2013; Kjellberg et al., 2012; Larsson Ranada and Lidström, 2019). In the study by Kjellberg et al. (2012), it was found that 39% of the participating occupational therapists referred to the client’s ability, such as cognitive functioning, as the primary reason for not applying a client-centered approach. However, having cognitive impairments does not exclude clients from the right to be actively involved in decisions about the services that they are offered, and the right to receive services that meet their needs and wishes. It could be argued that one of the limitations of client-centered practice is that some clients are not interested in or able to engage in collaborative partnerships with healthcare professionals. Some of the frameworks within occupational therapy have therefore emphasized that the term “client” should be understood broadly as including individuals, families, organizations or communities (Fisher and Jones, 2017; Townsend and Polatajko, 2007). However, Fisher and Jones (2017) still argue that, despite the fact that people may be unable to communicate or express needs, they are nevertheless the client. Relatives and others close to the client can offer valuable information about the client’s situation; yet, it is still the client who is at the center of the occupational therapy intervention. This is in line with a meta-aggregation by Kristensen and Peoples (2020), albeit conducted within a different field. They argue that people with cognitive impairments due to dementia want to be offered opportunities to make decisions in their everyday lives and to practice self-determination. A literature review conducted by the Swedish National Board of Social Services (2015) argues that, if the AT service delivery follows a systematic and structured service delivery process, and if information, evaluation, training, and follow-up are adapted to the client’s conditions, then this seems to facilitate and enable participation in the process for people with cognitive limitations. However, although in the current study client-centered models and instruments were used throughout, to meet clients’ needs for adaptations, descriptions of how the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention can be adapted to meet the needs of clients with cognitive impairments should be further developed.

Methodological considerations

This study was limited to a group of 10 occupational therapists. The participants were as stated earlier, selected on the basis of the criterion of having an interest in engaging in developmental work (Harvey and Kitson, 2015). The limitation in this decision could be that these occupational therapists were more positive toward changes than the other occupational therapists employed in the two municipalities. Despite the fact that qualitative research is not preoccupied with generalizability, a variation in the participants’ background is nevertheless often favored (Patton, 2015).

The first author, who moderated the focus groups, was also involved in the overall project and pilot of the AT intervention. In order to increase the trustworthiness of the findings, the moderator guide was discussed among all the authors and, during the focus groups, both first and last authors sought both positive and negative experiences. However, it is important to be aware of the possibility that some of the occupational therapists may have felt hindered in expressing negative experiences, due to the presence of the first author. On the other hand, it could be argued that the first author’s insight into the field and process could have augmented the quality of the questions and facilitated nuanced discussions among the participants. The participants were also colleagues in the two municipalities, which could have influenced their perspectives—both negatively and positively. During the interactions with the focus group, they were all asked to consider the question and write down some remarks before discussing the question in plenum. However, it is still possible that some participants might have withheld perspectives and experiences.

Member checking was not employed, as it is acknowledged within hermeneutical research that participants’ generation of meaning and perspectives, as revealed through the participants’ stories, may change with time and situation (Goldblatt et al., 2011). However, to increase the credibility of the findings, questions with the intention of clarifying understandings and perspectives were raised during the interview (Vandermause and Fleming, 2011).

Conclusion

The current study revealed that, by using the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention, occupational therapists found that the collaboration with clients was refined—more emphasis was put on shared responsibility. Some of the occupational therapists also found that, by using the theoretical framework and structured methods, they attained a more nuanced evaluation of the client’s situation. In the short term, the AT intervention was time consuming; however, some of the occupational therapists found it time-efficient in the long run. The occupational therapists also found that focus on occupational therapy and occupations was enhanced through the evidence-based, client-centered AT intervention, thereby strengthening their professional assessment and reporting, and making them feel more competent. However, there seems to be a particular challenge in designing services that are inclusive of clients with cognitive limitations.

Key findings

By using an evidence-based, client-centered intervention, the collaboration between the occupational therapists and the clients were refined. In the short term, the AT intervention was time consuming; however, conducting evaluations in a holistic way was considered time-efficient in the long run.

What the study has added

The study has added valuable knowledge to the field of AT service delivery, regarding occupational therapists’ perspectives on the application of an evidence-based, client-centered assistive technology intervention.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the participating occupational therapists from the two municipalities.

Research ethics

The Danish Data Protection Agency approved the project (ID number 2015-57-0016-021). Year of approval 2015. No further approval was required, in accordance with Danish legislation.

Patient and public involvement data

During the development, progress, and reporting of the submitted research, Patient and Public Involvement in the research was: Not included at any stage of the research.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by UCL, University College and the Danish Association of Occupational Therapists.

Contributorship

SML, HKK, and LH researched literature and conceived the study. SML, HKK, and LH were involved in protocol development, gaining ethical approval, and patient recruitment. All authors were involved in the data collection and data analysis. SML wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

ORCID iDs

Stina Meyer Larsen

Åse Brandt

Hanne Kaae Kristensen

References

Bernd

Van Der Pijl

De Witte

(2009) Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 16: 146–158.

Brandt

Christensen

Grünberger

(2014) Formidling Af Hjælpemidler Til Voksne Borgere. [The provision of assistive technology to adult citizens]. Odense: Socialstyrelsen.

Brandt

Christensen

Grünberger

(2015) How to accomplish the assistive technology service delivery process for adults in order to obtain the best outcomes – A literature review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 217: 469–477.

Brandt

Hansen

Christensen

(2020) The effects of assistive technology service delivery processes and factors associated with positive outcomes: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 15: 590–603.

Cook

Polgar

Encarnação

(2020) Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

Cott

(2004) Client-centred rehabilitation: Client perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation 26: 1411–1422.

Dahlager

Fredslund

(2008) Hermeneutic Analysis – Understanding and Pre-Understanding. Copenhagen: Gyldendal Akademisk.

Ergoterapeutforeningen (2015) Hjælpemidler: Nye Udfordringer Og Muligheder. [Assistive technologies: new challenges and possibilities]. Available at: https://www.etf.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/hjaelpemidler-nye-udfordringer-og-muligheder (accessed 29 December 2022).

Federici

(2014) An ideal model of an assistive technology assessment and delivery process. Technology and Disability 26: 27–38.

10.

Fisher

(2009) Occupational Therapy Intervention Process Model: A Model for Planning and Implementing Top-Down, Client-Centered and Occupation-Based Interventions. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.

11.

Fisher

(2013) Occupation-centred, occupation-based, occupation-focused: Same, same or different? Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 20: 162–173.

12.

Fisher

Jones

(2017) Occupational therapy intervention process model. In: Hinojosa

Kramer

Royeen

(eds) Perspectives on Human Occupation: Theories Underlying Practice. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company, pp. 237–286.

13.

Friederich

Bernd

De Witte

(2010) Methods for the selection of assistive technology in neurological rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 17: 308–318.

14.

Goldblatt

Karnieli-Miller

Neumann

(2011) Sharing qualitative research findings with participants: Study experiences of methodological and ethical dilemmas. Patient Education and Counseling 82: 389–395.

15.

Gramstad

Storli

Hamran

(2014) Older individuals’ experiences during the assistive technology device service delivery process. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 21: 305–312.

16.

Greenhalgh

Howick

Maskrey

(2014) Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis? BMJ 348: g3725.

17.

Gupta

Taff

(2015) The illusion of client-centred practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 22: 244–251.

18.

Halkier

(2012) Fokusgrupper. [Focus groups]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

19.

Hammell

(2013) Client-centred occupational therapy in Canada: Refocusing on core values. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 80: 141–149.

20.

Harvey

Kitson

(2015) Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Healthcare: A Facilitation Guide. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

21.

Hedberg-Kristensson

Ivanoff

Iwarsson

(2006) Participation in the prescription process of mobility devices: Experiences among older patients. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 69: 169–176.

22.

Hedberg-Kristensson

Iwarsson

(2013) Therapist attitudes and strategies to client-centred approaches in the provision of mobility devices to older clients. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 8: 381–386.

23.

Kassberg

Skär

(2008) Experiences of ethical dilemmas in rehabilitation: Swedish occupational therapists’ perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 15: 204–211.

24.

Kjellberg

Kåhlin

Haglund

, et al. (2012) The myth of participation in occupational therapy: Reconceptualizing a client-centred approach. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 19: 421–427.

25.

Kristensen

Peoples

(2020) Experiences Related to Quality of Life in People with Dementia Living in Institutional Settings – A Meta-Aggregation. London: SAGE Publications.

26.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2015) Interview: Det Kvalitative Forskningsinterview Som Håndværk. København: Hans Reitzel.

27.

Larsen

Mortensen

Kristensen

, et al. (2018) Older adults’ perspectives on the process of becoming users of assistive technology: A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 14: 182–193.

28.

Larsen

Hounsgaard

Brandt

, et al. (2019) “Becoming acquainted”: The process of incorporating assistive technology into occupations. Journal of Occupational Science 26: 77–86.

29.

Larsen

Hounsgaard

Johansson

, et al. (2020) Encounters between older adults and occupational therapists during the assistive technology application process. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 27: 280–288.

30.

Larsson Ranada

Lidström

(2019) Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process: A systematic review. Assistive Technology 31: 82–91.

31.

Lassen

Brandt

Larsen

(2019) Hjælpemidler og velfærdsteknologi i hverdagslivet. [Assistive technologies and Welfaretechnology in everyday life]. In: Brandt

Pedersen

Peoples

(eds) Basisbog i Ergoterapi. København: Munksgaard, pp. 355–372.

32.

Linden

Lexell

Lund

(2010) Perceived difficulties using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: Influence on activity and participation. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 17: 267–275.

33.

Morgan

(1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA; London: Sage.

34.

Mortenson

Clarke

Best

(2013) Prescribers’ experiences with powered mobility prescription among older adults. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 67: 100–107.

35.

Mroz

Pitonyak

Fogelberg

, et al. (2015) Client centeredness and health reform: Key issues for occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 69: 1–8.

36.

Patton

(2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

37.

Rycroft-Malone

Seers

Titchen

, et al. (2004) What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? Journal of Advanced Nursing 47: 81–90.

38.

Sirkka

Larsson-Lund

Zingmark

(2014a) Occupational therapists’ experiences of improvement work: A journey towards sustainable evidence-based practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 21: 90–97.

39.

Sirkka

Zingmark

Larsson-Lund

(2014b) A process for developing sustainable evidence-based occupational therapy practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 21(6): 429–437.

40.

Socialstyrelsen (2015) Kartläggning Av Vetenskapliga Studier Kring Förskrivningsprocessen. [A map of scientific studies about the prescription process]. Sverige: Socialstyrelsen.

41.

Spradley

(1979) The Ethnographic Interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.

42.

Sumsion

Law

(2006) A review of evidence on the conceptual elements informing client-centred practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 73: 153–162.

43.

Townsend

Polatajko

(2007) Enabling Occupation II: Advancing an Occupational Therapy Vision for Health, Well-being, & Justice through Occupation. Ottawa: CAOT.

44.

Triccas

McLening

Hendrie

, et al. (2019) Is there a standard procedure for assessing and providing assistive devices for people with neuro-disabling conditions in United Kingdom? A nation-wide survey. Disability and Health Journal 12: 93–97.

45.

Vandermause

Fleming

(2011) Philosophical hermeneutic interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 10: 367–377.

46.

Wessels

Persson

Lorentsen

, et al. (2002) IPPA: Individually prioritised problem assessment. Technology and Disability 14: 141–145.

47.

World Federation of Occupational Therapists (2019a) Global Indicators of Assistive Technology use Amongst Occupational Therapists: Report from the World Federation of Occupational Therapists’ (WFOT). Geneva: WFOT.

48.

World Federation of Occupational Therapists (2019b) Occupational Therapy and Assistive Technology. Geneva: WFOT.

49.

World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2022) Global Report on Assistive Technology. Geneva: World Health Organization.