The first issue of the British Journal of Occupational Therapy was published in 1938. This year is the celebration of its 80th anniversary which provides an opportunity to consider how it has reflected and influenced the profession. The world of occupational therapy was very different in 1938 and the journal of the time reflected that.The origins of the profession in the United Kingdom (UK) began in 1922 with the employment of an ‘occupational instructor’ at Gartnavel Royal Mental Hospital in Glasgow. Three years later the first person to receive a formal education as an occupational therapist in the USA returned to Scotland to work. The initial school of occupational therapy was founded in 1930. By 1938, occupational therapy was a very small profession and the journal acted as a link between members providing information about the developing professional organisation, accounts of meetings, book reviews and social information about members.Initially, the journal was published two or three times a year with each issue having a few pages. Later, as more material became available it moved to four issues a year and in1957 it adopted its current format of a monthly publication. At that time it also included educational articles usually written by doctors and a correspondence column to encourage exchange of ideas and information.Research articles began to feature in the journal during the 1960s and 1970s. These were often small scale, local projects and at the same time there were reports explaining the need for more research in the profession and encouraging occupational therapists to become involved in research. By the 1980s research articles increased and the 1990s saw the introduction of degree qualifications for all occupational therapists in the UK. As these degree programmes included education about research methods, new generations of occupational therapists had a basic understanding of research, thus enabling individual therapists to develop their research qualifications and the profession to build research capacity.The journal has continued to flourish with many significant achievements in the last few years - gaining an Impact Factor, developing an International Editorial Board, appointing an Editor-in-Chief and moving to an online journal published by Sage.Today, it is an international journal publishing mainly research and review articles from many counties. In 2017 we published authors from 17 countries. We are aware of the challenges facing readers whose first language is not English and earlier this year we published an editorial by a Japanese author, who is a member of our Editorial Board, in both English and Japanese (NAKAMURA-THOMAS, 2018). Like all our editorials, it is free to read and we hope to expand dual language editorials to other languages.The journal has maintained and strengthened its focus on publishing research articles and reviews that advance knowledge and provide the evidence for practice. We are committed to publishing pilot and feasibility studies and Drummond (2017) in her editorial explained their value in testing the basis for future larger studies. However, they can be difficult for researchers to publish as they are often small scale and may not show definite conclusions. To emphasize them, they are included in a regular issue and also in an online Spotlight Collection. In one recent example Eakman et al. (2017) found that it was feasible to deliver a controlled trial of a multi-component CBT-I intervention delivered by occupational therapists to injured veterans with chronic insomnia. In another editorial, Unsworth (2017) explained the importance of rigorous review articles to search for and synthesis the findings from a number of research studies focusing on a topic or answering a specific question. This had already resulted in an increase in the number reviews submitted and more are welcomed.Reflecting the broad scope of international occupational therapy practice, the research now published in the journal relates to different life stages and conditions. In one of the most downloaded articles, Allen and Casey (2017) examined data on 93 children, between the ages of 5 to 12 years, with developmental coordination disorder. They found that most of them had some difficulties in sensory processing and integration that influenced their participation in everyday activities. These difficulties differed significantly between those with co-morbid autistic spectrum disorder and those without. Prior et al. (2017) explored the views of 32 people with inflammatory arthritis about an occupational therapy led job retention workrehabilitation programme they received. They considered that they were able to cope better at work and valued both the emotional support and the practical self-management education in the programme. In an innovative study to enable older people living at home to be more involved in acquiring assistive devices, Spiliotopoulou, Atwal and McIntyre (2018) involved 26 older people and 25 health care professionals in establishing the accuracy of measurements of height of baths, toilets, stairs etc. The resultant guidance enables older people and health professionals to measure home items reliably and accurately.These examples illustrate the range of articles that the journal publishes to advance knowledge and enable occupational therapists and colleagues have strong evidence to guide practice. Just as issues in previous years emphasised the need for more research, that theme remains. Now a study has identified what helps and what hinders occupational therapists to engage in research. Di Bona et al. (2017) conducted focus groups with 28 occupational therapists involved in a large scale research programme evaluating a community occupational therapy intervention for people living with mild to moderate dementia and their family carers. Their involvement was challenged by implementing research tasks and new interventions but enabled by support, allocated time and positive attitudes.It is interesting to observe how the British Journal of Occupational Therapy has reflected the needs of the profession through the decades. From providing an educational resource and acting as a link between the small number of therapists in the early years to becoming the official academic journal of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists publishing international research to advance occupational therapy. Christine CraikEditor-in-Chief, British Journal of Occupational TherapyRoyal College of Occupational Therapists
Now well into my role as inaugural Editor-in-Chief for the British Journal of Occupational Therapy (BJOT), I am able to summarise progress so far and share the strategic directions the Editorial Board has agreed and how we intend to implement them to further improve and develop the journal. We have been publishing with SAGE Publications for over a year, and last November they hosted the first meeting of our new, international, Editorial Board, established to guide the journal’s development. Also, last year we appointed three volunteer Associate Editors. Journal subscriptions have grown and this, along with general promotion from our publisher, has significantly extended BJOT ’s reach. BJOT had seen increasing submission numbers; over the 5 years from 2010 there was an almost 80% increase, reaching 269 submissions in 2014. In 2015 the number reduced slightly to 250. This is a trend noticed across other journals and is not of concern. Healthy submissions enable the selection of those that most closely meet our aims and scope. As we publish around 85 articles per year in monthly issues (about one in three of those submitted) we can focus on submissions with international relevance that advance knowledge on research, practice, education and management in occupational therapy. International relevance is indeed evident in our submissions, which in 2015 came from 29 different countries. The United Kingdom (UK) provided the largest number with 121 (48%), followed by Australia, with 38 (15%), European countries other than the UK, with 22 (9%) and then the United States (USA), with 18 (7%). Twothirds of submissions were research (56%) and critical reviews (11%), with practice analysis articles and opinion pieces representing 11% each. Prompt access to research is important to provide readers with the latest evidence and to provide authors with timely publication. Now that the journal has fully transitioned to SAGE, we aim for online publication within 30 working days of an accepted article going into production and can fast track articles of particular significance or topicality. Open access publication in the journal (or via institutional repository) is available for authors (Norman, 2015). For authors and readers the journal web platform offers many useful tools, advice on promoting your article (SAGE Resources for Journal Authors, 2016). Online collections, and data on citations and ‘most read’ articles. Editorial processes have developed, key changes being initial screening of manuscripts by the Editor-in-Chief, to determine whether to send to peer review, and the use of Associate Editors to advise on papers. While authors are naturally disappointed if their submission is not sent to review, a prompt decision enables them to consider alternative plans and also reduces the workload of our reviewers, to whom we are very grateful. Reviewers receive public acknowledgement in a journal issue each year, providing them with evidence for their continuing professional development or other purposes. Our review process remains blinded with two reviewers; normally at least one is chosen from outside the UK, to ensure international input. The Editorial Board confirmed the strategic objective to target international research from a wide field, and to attract strong researchers who might not previously have considered BJOT for their work. While relevant topics are encouraged, the Editorial Board noted that areas such as mental health, occupation and professional issues have been well represented, as have both driving and dementia as a result of special issues. The Board decided to encourage submissions on topics that have been less represented to date such as employment, technology, neurology and older people. Special issue planning also recognises this focus with recent topics having very strong submissions. The special issue on Driving and Community Mobility
Background: A bibliometric analysis was completed of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 written by British occupational therapy authors that was indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-Expanded) or Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) databases. Methods: “Occupational therapy” and “occupational therapist” were used as keywords to search journal articles’ publication title, abstract, author details, keywords, and KeyWords Plus. One of the authors had to be identified as a qualified occupational therapist with a British affiliation. Results: From 1991 to 2015, 680 journal articles were published by British occupational therapy authors. The top three journals in which authors published were the British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Clinical Rehabilitation, and Disability and Rehabilitation. The five institutions that generated the largest number of occupational therapy articles were the University of Nottingham, Brunel University London, University of Southampton, Queen Margaret University, and the University of East Anglia. British authors often collaborated in the writing of manuscripts with other authors from Australia, the United States, Canada, and Sweden. Conclusion: The quantity of occupational therapy peer-reviewed literature written by British authors has increased over the last 2 decades. British authors have made and continue to make noteworthy contributions to the profession’s body of refereed knowledge at the national and international levels.
The end of my term of office on the Editorial Board seems a suitable time to reflect on the progress of the British Journal of Occupational Therapy (BJOT ) and to look to its future. Last year I reported that BJOT was successful in its first application to be indexed by Thomson Reuters, the initial stage in our long-term strategy to obtain an impact factor (Craik 2011). It was hoped that the impact factor would be received this year; unfortunately, this is not the case and we will have to wait patiently for that announcement. Since the indexing, which is the step before being assigned an impact factor, there has been an increase in the number and quality of manuscripts submitted for publication and there are now sufficient accepted manuscripts for five issues of the journal. This position means that our 274 manuscript reviewers can be more rigorous in their scrutiny and continue to strive to increase the quality of the articles that are published. With more submissions and a publishing rate of around 75 articles each year, the journal can move to accepting around a third of the manuscripts submitted ‐ a figure similar to comparable publications. Authors wishing to increase their chances of publication are encouraged to consult the revised Author ’s Guide (BJOT 2012) and to follow its advice. The BJOT website now includes additional guidance based on posters presented at recent conferences. This is aimed at novice authors, especially those publishing from work originally submitted for an academic award. As occupational therapy has developed in different directions around the world, BJOT has a responsibility to publish international literature, especially in areas of practice less well established in the United Kingdom (UK) (Craik 2009). The need for this approach is reinforced in this issue, where Mcfeely (2012) urges UK occupational therapists to use international literature to assert their position in the development of vocational rehabilitation.
This article describes an analysis of the content of papers in the British Journal of Occupational Therapy over an 8-year period, from 1989 to 1996. The analysis is underpinned by research questions concerned with extent of published research, evidence of responsiveness to recent health and social care policy implementation and demonstrations of clinical effectiveness. The results of the analysis show that the majority of published papers over the 8 years were descriptive in nature. Of the papers with a research orientation, the most reported area of interest was physical disability. However, much of this research was small scale and there was a notable absence of funded projects. Nevertheless, the number of papers describing research activity increased markedly during the latter years, as did the application of evidence-based material. Policy-related material was poorly represented overall, as were papers concerned with evidence of effectiveness. These results suggest that occupational therapists are developing a research base. However, this needs to extend across a range of clinical interests. There is also a need to demonstrate a greater understanding of roles and responsibilities within the current policy framework.
Occupational therapy, formally organized in the United States in 1917, is considered an allied health field. Mapping occupational therapy literature is part of a bibliometric project of the Medical Library Association's Nursing and Allied Health Resources Section's project for mapping the literature of allied health. Three core journals were selected from the years 1995 and 1996 and a determination was made of the extent to which the cited journal references were covered by standard indexing sources. Using Bradford's Law of Scattering three zones were created, each containing approximately one-third of the cited journal references. The results showed that three journals made up the first zone, 117 journals the second, and 657 the third. The most cited journal was the American Journal of Occupational Therapy. In the second zone, journals from twelve disciplines were identified. While MEDLINE provided the best overall indexing, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) was the only database that indexed the three most cited journals plus nine of the currently active titles in occupational therapy. MEDLINE could improve its coverage of occupational therapy by indexing the journals of the British, Canadian, and Australian national associations.
BACKGROUND: Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.
Background/aim: With increasing pressure for academic accountability, there is a need for the profession to consider the quality and impact of its journals. This seems even more pressing because few occupational therapy journals have an impact factor, which has become synonymous with quality. By surveying authors of papers in occupational therapy journals, this study aimed to determine their perceptions of indicators of journal quality and ratings of 19 occupational therapy journals on these indicators and to have them provide a global rating for non‐occupational therapy journals. Methods: Authors of papers in peer‐reviewed occupational therapy journals between 2003 and 2005 were invited to complete an online survey. Of 554 authors, 184 (33%) responded. Most respondents were female (91%); over 40 years of age (78%); from the USA (29%), Canada (17%), Australia (16%), UK (16%) or Sweden (10%); had PhDs or professional doctorates (55%); and were academics (53%). The majority (63%) had published between 0 and two papers per year over the previous 3 years. Results: The top five quality indicators rated as very important were reputation/prestige of the journal, availability, rigour and quality of the manuscript review process, timeliness of review and publication, and impact on policy/practice. Six journals were rated high by respondents across most quality indicators ( American Journal of Occupational Therapy, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, and Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy ). Conclusions: The results are discussed in terms of promoting research and scholarship within academic institutions that are influenced by measures of research productivity and quality. Limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are included.
BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 comparative risk assessment (CRA) is a comprehensive approach to risk factor quantification that offers a useful tool for synthesising evidence on risks and risk-outcome associations. With each annual GBD study, we update the GBD CRA to incorporate improved methods, new risks and risk-outcome pairs, and new data on risk exposure levels and risk-outcome associations. METHODS: We used the CRA framework developed for previous iterations of GBD to estimate levels and trends in exposure, attributable deaths, and attributable disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), by age group, sex, year, and location for 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or groups of risks from 1990 to 2017. This study included 476 risk-outcome pairs that met the GBD study criteria for convincing or probable evidence of causation. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from 46 749 randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL), we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We explored the relationship between development and risk exposure by modelling the relationship between the Socio-demographic Index (SDI) and risk-weighted exposure prevalence and estimated expected levels of exposure and risk-attributable burden by SDI. Finally, we explored temporal changes in risk-attributable DALYs by decomposing those changes into six main component drivers of change as follows: (1) population growth; (2) changes in population age structures; (3) changes in exposure to environmental and occupational risks; (4) changes in exposure to behavioural risks; (5) changes in exposure to metabolic risks; and (6) changes due to all other factors, approximated as the risk-deleted death and DALY rates, where the risk-deleted rate is the rate that would be observed had we reduced the exposure levels to the TMREL for all risk factors included in GBD 2017. FINDINGS: In 2017, 34·1 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 33·3-35·0) deaths and 1·21 billion (1·14-1·28) DALYs were attributable to GBD risk factors. Globally, 61·0% (59·6-62·4) of deaths and 48·3% (46·3-50·2) of DALYs were attributed to the GBD 2017 risk factors. When ranked by risk-attributable DALYs, high systolic blood pressure (SBP) was the leading risk factor, accounting for 10·4 million (9·39-11·5) deaths and 218 million (198-237) DALYs, followed by smoking (7·10 million [6·83-7·37] deaths and 182 million [173-193] DALYs), high fasting plasma glucose (6·53 million [5·23-8·23] deaths and 171 million [144-201] DALYs), high body-mass index (BMI; 4·72 million [2·99-6·70] deaths and 148 million [98·6-202] DALYs), and short gestation for birthweight (1·43 million [1·36-1·51] deaths and 139 million [131-147] DALYs). In total, risk-attributable DALYs declined by 4·9% (3·3-6·5) between 2007 and 2017. In the absence of demographic changes (ie, population growth and ageing), changes in risk exposure and risk-deleted DALYs would have led to a 23·5% decline in DALYs during that period. Conversely, in the absence of changes in risk exposure and risk-deleted DALYs, demographic changes would have led to an 18·6% increase in DALYs during that period. The ratios of observed risk exposure levels to exposure levels expected based on SDI (O/E ratios) increased globally for unsafe drinking water and household air pollution between 1990 and 2017. This result suggests that development is occurring more rapidly than are changes in the underlying risk structure in a population. Conversely, nearly universal declines in O/E ratios for smoking and alcohol use indicate that, for a given SDI, exposure to these risks is declining. In 2017, the leading Level 4 risk factor for age-standardised DALY rates was high SBP in four super-regions: central Europe, eastern Europe, and central Asia; north Africa and Middle East; south Asia; and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania. The leading risk factor in the high-income super-region was smoking, in Latin America and Caribbean was high BMI, and in sub-Saharan Africa was unsafe sex. O/E ratios for unsafe sex in sub-Saharan Africa were notably high, and those for alcohol use in north Africa and the Middle East were notably low. INTERPRETATION: By quantifying levels and trends in exposures to risk factors and the resulting disease burden, this assessment offers insight into where past policy and programme efforts might have been successful and highlights current priorities for public health action. Decreases in behavioural, environmental, and occupational risks have largely offset the effects of population growth and ageing, in relation to trends in absolute burden. Conversely, the combination of increasing metabolic risks and population ageing will probably continue to drive the increasing trends in non-communicable diseases at the global level, which presents both a public health challenge and opportunity. We see considerable spatiotemporal heterogeneity in levels of risk exposure and risk-attributable burden. Although levels of development underlie some of this heterogeneity, O/E ratios show risks for which countries are overperforming or underperforming relative to their level of development. As such, these ratios provide a benchmarking tool to help to focus local decision making. Our findings reinforce the importance of both risk exposure monitoring and epidemiological research to assess causal connections between risks and health outcomes, and they highlight the usefulness of the GBD study in synthesising data to draw comprehensive and robust conclusions that help to inform good policy and strategic health planning. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics refers to the collection and measurement of publishing and citation data configurations with the goal of quantifying the influence of scholarly activities. Advantages of bibliometrics include the generation of quantitative indicators of impact, productivity, quality and collaboration. Those parties who benefit from the results of bibliometric analysis include researchers, educators, journal publishers, employers and research funding bodies. METHODS: A bibliometric analysis was completed of peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, written by Australian occupational therapists (who were able to be identified as such), and indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-Expanded) or the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) databases. "Occupational therapy" and "occupational therapist(s)" were used as keywords to search journal articles' publication title, abstract, author details, keywords and KeyWord Plus. RESULTS: Between 1991 and 2015, 752 peer-reviewed journal articles were published by Australian occupational therapy authors. On average, those articles had 3.7 authors, 35 references, and were nine pages in length. The top four journals in which Australian occupational therapists published were Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, British Journal of Occupational Therapy, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, and Physical and Occupational Therapy in Paediatrics. The four Australian institutions that generated the largest number of occupational therapy articles were the University of Queensland, University of Sydney, La Trobe University, and Monash University. The top four countries with whom Australian authors collaborated in manuscript writing were the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Sweden. CONCLUSION: The volume of occupational therapy peer-reviewed literature has grown over the last two decades. Australian authors have and continue to make significant contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge nationally and internationally.
This review of the literature was conducted as part of the development of a position paper on the way ahead for research, education and practice in occupational therapy in mental health. It included publications over the past decade and concentrated on the British Journal of Occupational Therapy. Recognising that experience from other countries would be beneficial, aspects of the literature from the national journals in the USA, Canada and Australia which were most relevant to practice in the United Kingdom were included. The shortage of articles on mental health was conspicuous and their diverse topics and descriptive nature were notable. In the United Kingdom literature, the clinical subjects featured most often were dementia, work rehabilitation, community mental health and forensic psychiatry, with other subjects either appearing infrequently or not included. The literature from the other countries also explored new roles for occupational therapy, reflecting the changes in the delivery of mental health services. In the American Journal of Occupational Therapy, there was concern about the declining number of occupational therapists working in mental health. The review identified major themes in the literature, posed questions for research, education and practice in occupational therapy and formed the foundation for the position paper.
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are referred to occupational therapy with complaints about fatigue, limb weakness, alteration of upper extremity fine motor coordination, loss of sensation and spasticity that causes limitations in performance of activities of daily living and social participation. The primary purpose of occupational therapy is to enable individuals to participate in self-care, work and leisure activities that they want or need to perform. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether occupational therapy interventions in MS patients improve outcome on functional ability, social participation and/or health related quality of life. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant full length articles were identified by electronical searches in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Amed, Scisearch and The Cochrane MS Group Trials Register. The reference list of identified studies and reviews were examined for additional references. Date of last search: December 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled (randomized and non-randomized) and other than controlled studies addressing occupational therapy for MS patients were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the included trials was independently assessed by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. A list proposed by Van Tulder et al. (Van Tulder 1997) was used to assess the methodological quality. For outcome measures, standardized mean differences were calculated. The results were analysed using a best-evidence synthesis based on type of design, methodological quality and the significant findings of outcome and/or process measures. MAIN RESULTS: Only one randomized clinical trial was identified. Two other included studies were a controlled clinical trial and a study with a pre-post test design. The studies included 271 patients in total. Two studies evaluated an energy-conservation course for groups of patients and one study evaluated a counselling intervention. The results of the energy conservation studies could be biased because of the designs used, the poor methodological quality and the small number of included patients. The high quality RCT on counselling reported non-significant results. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: On basis of this review no conclusions can be stated whether occupational therapy improves outcome in MS patients. The lack of (randomized controlled) efficacy studies in most intervention categories of OT shows an urgent need for future research in occupational therapy for multiple sclerosis. Initially, a survey of occupational therapy practice for MS patients including the characteristics and needs of these patients is necessary to develop a research agenda for efficacy studies.
BACKGROUND: No intervention has proven effective in modifying long-term disease prognosis in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) but exercise therapy is considered to be an important part of symptomatic and supportive treatment for these patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of exercise therapy for patients with MS in terms of activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane MS Group Specialised Register (searched: March 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (from 1966 to March 2004), EMBASE (from 1988 to March 2004 ), CINAHL (from 1982 to March 2004), PEDro (from 1999 to March 2004) . Manual search in the journal 'Multiple Sclerosis' and screening of the reference lists of identified studies and reviews. We also searched abstracts published in proceedings of conferences. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) that reported on exercise therapy for adults with MS, not presently experiencing an exacerbation; outcomes that include measures of activity limitation or health-related quality of life or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and methodological quality of the included trials. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. The results were analysed using a best-evidence synthesis based on methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Nine high-methodological-quality RCTs(260 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Six trials focussed on comparison of exercise therapy versus no exercise therapy, whereas three trials compared two interventions that both met our definition of exercise therapy. Best evidence synthesis showed strong evidence in favour of exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy in terms of muscle power function, exercise tolerance functions and mobility-related activities. Moderate evidence was found for improving mood. No evidence was observed for exercise therapy on fatigue and perception of handicap when compared to no exercise therapy. Finally, no evidence was found that specific exercise therapy programmes were more successful in improving activities and participation than other exercise treatments. No evidence of deleterious effects of exercise therapy was described in included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present review suggest that exercise therapy can be beneficial for patients with MS not experiencing an exacerbation. There is an urgent need for consensus on a core set of outcome measures to be used in exercise trials. In addition, these studies should experimentally control for 'dose' of treatment, type of MS and should include sufficient contrast between experimental and control groups.
BACKGROUND: This updated Cochrane Review of reminiscence therapy (RT) for dementia was first published in 1998, and last updated in 2005. RT involves the discussion of memories and past experiences with other people using tangible prompts such as photographs or music to evoke memories and stimulate conversation. RT is implemented widely in a range of settings using a variety of formats. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of RT on people living with dementia and their carers, taking into account differences in its implementation, including setting (care home, community) and modality (group, individual). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register) on 6 April 2017 using the search term 'reminiscence.' SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials of RT for dementia in which the duration of the intervention was at least four weeks (or six sessions) and that had a 'no treatment' or passive control group. Outcomes of interest were quality of life (QoL), cognition, communication, behaviour, mood and carer outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (LOP and EF) independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from all sufficiently similar studies reporting on each outcome. We undertook subgroup analysis by setting (community versus care home) and by modality (individual versus group). We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: = 62%; negative scores indicated improvement; 6 studies; 249 participants), but there was inconsistency between studies, related to the RT modality. At follow-up, there was probably a slight benefit of RT (SMD -0.49 points, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.21; 4 studies; 204 participants). Effects were uncertain for individual RT, with very low quality evidence available. For reminiscence groups, evidence of moderate quality indicated a probable slight benefit immediately (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.06; 4 studies; 153 participants), and at later follow-up. Community participants probably benefited at end of treatment and follow-up. For care home participants, the results were inconsistent between studies and, while there may be an improvement at follow-up, at the end of treatment the evidence quality was very low and effects were uncertain.Other outcome domains examined for people with dementia included mood, functioning in daily activities, agitation/irritability and relationship quality. There were no clear effects in these domains. Individual reminiscence was probably associated with a slight benefit on depression scales, although its clinical importance was uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.06; 4 studies; 131 participants). We found no evidence of any harmful effects on people with dementia.We also looked at outcomes for carers, including stress, mood and quality of relationship with the person with dementia (from the carer's perspective). We found no evidence of effects on carers other than a potential adverse outcome related to carer anxiety at longer-term follow-up, based on two studies that had involved the carer jointly in reminiscence groups with people with dementia. The control group carers were probably slightly less anxious (MD 0.56 points, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.30; 464 participants), but this result is of uncertain clinical importance, and is also consistent with little or no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of reminiscence interventions are inconsistent, often small in size and can differ considerably across settings and modalities. RT has some positive effects on people with dementia in the domains of QoL, cognition, communication and mood. Care home studies show the widest range of benefits, including QoL, cognition and communication (at follow-up). Individual RT is associated with probable benefits for cognition and mood. Group RT and a community setting are associated with probable improvements in communication. The wide range of RT interventions across studies makes comparisons and evaluation of relative benefits difficult. Treatment protocols are not described in sufficient detail in many publications. There have been welcome improvements in the quality of research on RT since the previous version of this review, although there still remains a need for more randomised controlled trials following clear, detailed treatment protocols, especially allowing the effects of simple and integrative RT to be compared.
Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self)-citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.
The theoretical base of the research of occupational injuries is the idea of the process as Markov chain of random variables. However the exact proof of this position was not carried out whereas the experimental passing of the hypothesis is connected always with the determined confidence limits and consequently it gives the space for alternative assumptions. In this research some databases of occupational injuries had been studied using spectral analysis techniques and the presentation of the occupational injuries as the temporal sequence of the cases ("telegraph wave" process type). Databases had corresponding chapters such as "enterprise" with number of employees about 7000, "big enterprise" (the number of employees about 35000), "whole branch of industry", "whole enterprises of industrial region" receiving during 10 years from different countries having distinguish system of the work organization (Russia and Italy). The behaviour of spectra on principal is not changed when vary the length of realization, resolution, smoothing, upper boundary frequency, country and year of datas. All spectra showed that the occupational injuries process has a not Markov, but deterministic polyhar
For over a decade, debates in occupational therapy have extended into the profession's theoretical foundations as well as epistemological underpinnings thereof A series of proposals have emerged from around the world that aim to link the definition of occupational therapy, its knowledge and practices to contemporary social, political, cultural and economic conditions. Contributing to this is the increasing precariousness of the global social life, the economic crises of many social systems, and the deterioration of the ecological environment. The current paper critically reflects on the historical conditions that shape the institution of occupational therapy, particularly in the regions of South America and Africa. This involves a political, ethical, and epistemological rethinking of the foundations that underpin identities, knowledge and practices of occupational therapy and their effects on society. These foundations may favour processes of exclusion and ahistorical and individualist views of human occupation, as opposed to social perspectives expressed in collective occupations and human rights promoting practices. The authors propose to problematise the construction of a professional identity, knowledge and practices of occupational therapy, emphasising the need for a liberating discipline, committed to and acting alongside people and communities who are in situations of social exclusion. This implies the necessary positioning of occupational therapy within social transformation. Key words: Southern, critical, epistemologies, human occupation, human rights
The journal impact factor (JIF) is the average of the number of citations of the papers published in a journal, calculated according to a specific formula; it is extensively used for the evaluation of research and researchers. The method assumes that all papers in a journal have the same scientific merit, which is measured by the JIF of the publishing journal. This implies that the number of citations measures scientific merits but the JIF does not evaluate each individual paper by its own number of citations. Therefore, in the comparative evaluation of two papers, the use of the JIF implies a risk of failure, which occurs when a paper in the journal with the lower JIF is compared to another with fewer citations in the journal with the higher JIF. To quantify this risk of failure, this study calculates the failure probabilities, taking advantage of the lognormal distribution of citations. In two journals whose JIFs are ten-fold different, the failure probability is low. However, in most cases when two papers are compared, the JIFs of the journals are not so different. Then, the failure probability can be close to 0.5, which is equivalent to evaluating by coin flipping.
As part of the College of Occupational Therapists' Mental Health Project, a survey of occupational therapists practising in mental health in the United Kingdom was conducted. A questionnaire was sent to 200 members of the Association of Occupational Therapists in Mental Health and achieved a 68.5% response rate. The majority of the 137 respondents were female, with Senior I staff between 20 and 30 years of age, who were unlikely to have worked in another area, forming the largest group. Although most had received additional training, they identified the need for more training, especially in aspects of occupational therapy. Most were managed by an occupational therapist and 96% received supervision. Community mental health was the most frequently reported area of work, with leisure, counselling, anxiety management and creative activities the most frequently used interventions. The respondents were committed to the core principles of occupational therapy and the need to develop outcome measures and evidence-based practice, and were concerned about moves to generic working. This study has provided data not only for the position paper on the way ahead for occupational therapy in mental health but also for individual occupational therapists and managers.
One thousand seven hundred and forty six articles were analysed from the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT), the British Occupational Therapy Journal (BOTJ) and the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (AOTJ). Article content, format and author status were documented. Results indicated that the primary topics addressed in these journals were related to physical, professional, paediatric and psychiatric issues, with growing interest occurring in professional, teaching, sensory integration and community practices. The chief authors were occupational therapy clinicians, however, the trends revealed this was declining with an increase in contributions from occupational therapy academics and students along with non occupational therapists. Finally, the format adopted by these authors was chiefly descriptive with a developing tendency towards more research‐based formats in BOTJ and AOTJ. These nevertheless still fell short of the percentage of research articles found in AJOT which remained consistently at about 32 percent.