Abstract
OTPs in four countries completed an online survey related to their perceptions, practices, and decision-making processes when using evidence to inform sensory-based interventions. This study examined OTPs’ awareness of sensory-based literature, knowledge base of existing evidence, and how evidence-based practice intervention skills were obtained. This session will discuss survey outcomes and the implications for future practice, as well as provide a current list of sensory-based evidence for participants.
Primary Author and Speaker: Elizabeth Mirasola
Additional Authors and Speakers: Madison Sutton, Micah Cutler
Contributing Authors: Tara Glennon
RQ: What are the perceptions, practices, and decision-making processes of OTPs in the US, GB, AU, and CA when using sensory-based interventions for children experiencing sensory processing difficulties?
OT’s use of EBP allows interventions to be supported by scientific research; thus, increasing the profession’s credibility. However, prior research over the past two decades revealed limited use of evidence. For example, while 96% of AU OTPs agreed that EBP is important, only 56% reported that they used research to make clinical decisions, relying more so on experience (1). With the percentage of OTPs in the workforce increasing across the globe, our profession has an obligation to meet the EBP expectations in health care.
The purpose of this research was to explore how and why OTPs (US, GB, AU, and CA) use evidence to support both therapist-led interventions (e.g., direct Ayres Sensory Integration or other sensory-based strategies) and therapist-supported interventions (e.g., strategies instructed by OTPs but delivered by others such as the use of weighted vests, therapy ball chairs, and Wilbarger Protocol).
This non-experimental, quantitative survey design was implemented via the SurveyMonkey, online platform with a researcher-developed instrument created based on an extensive literature review. Following demographic information, Likert scale formatted questions queried where and how evidence was obtained; frequency of reviewing the literature; barriers to obtaining evidence; types of sensory-based interventions provided and with which diagnostic populations; and the extent of training in providing sensory interventions. Thereafter, a list of 30+ evidence-based articles for the OTPs to check off if they have read the article.
Following IRB approval, pediatric OTPs were recruited via emails from publically available professional organizations (e.g., Royal College, Canadian OT Association, the OT Australia Practitioner), as well as social media platforms. The recruitment email and description included the nature of the study, potential risks, confidentiality procedures, and contact information for the researchers. Inclusion criteria included OTPs who self-identified as working in pediatrics and implementing sensory-based interventions. Descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies and percentages) were utilized with cross-tabulation for specific demographic information.
To date (with the survey still active), 160 surveys have been completed – 6.9% US, 17% GB, 27.7% AU, and 48.4% Canada. Preliminary findings: 94% agree that EPB is important to ensure effectiveness and choice of interventions, 84% identify gathering evidence through scientific literature, and nearly half indicating that they review the literature every 3-6 months.
However, less than 50% read any of the 10 weighted vest articles; less than 60% read any of the 4 ball/seating articles; and less than 60% read any of the Wilbarger articles. The most frequently read articles were related to ASI (2, 3), specifically the two fidelity to intervention articles (58% and 46%) and one effectiveness article (68%) (4). The most common barrier to implementing evidence into practice was a lack of time to read current literature (74%).
A majority of respondents from all four countries (67.63%) indicated that EBP is important in intervention implementation. While data collection has not yet completed, data suggests that US OTPs review the evidence less frequently than OTPs in the other countries – with only 8% US indicating that they review evidence every 3 months or more. The results currently indicate that there needs to be more access to and more internal motivation to review EBP literature as an important professional function.
1. Bennett, S., Tooth, L., McKenna, K., Rodger, S., Strong, J., Ziviani, J., Mickan, S., & Gibson, L. (2003). Perceptions of evidence-based practice: A survey of Australian occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 50(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/ 10.1046/j.1440-1630.2003.00341.x
2. Parham, L. D., Cohn, E. S., Spitzer, S., Koomar, J. A., Miller, L. J., Burke, J. P., et al. (2007). Fidelity in sensory integration intervention research. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 216-227. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=a13qu&id=GALE|A208275791&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon
3. Parham, L. D., Roley, S. S., May-Benson T. A., Koomar, J., Brett-Green, B., Burke, J. P., Cohn, E. S., Mailloux, Z., Miller L. J., Schaaf, R. C. (2011). Development of a Fidelity Measure for Research on the Effectiveness of the Ayres Sensory Integration® Intervention. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65, 133-142. doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.000745
4. Pfeiffer, B. A., Koenig, K., Kinnealey, M., Sheppard, M., & Henderson, L. (2011). Effectiveness of sensory integration interventions in children with autism spectrum disorders: A Pilot Study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(1), 76-85. doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.09205