1 / 32

Comparison of OT Practice Framework and UT III

shanae
Download Presentation

Comparison of OT Practice Framework and UT III

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Comparison of OT Practice Framework and UT III OT 653

    2. Comparison of OT Practice Framework to UT III

    3. Comparison of OT Practice Framework to UT III

    4. Comparison of OT Practice Framework to UT III

    5. Comparison of OT Practice Framework to UT III

    6. Comparison of OT Practice Framework to UT III

    7. Comparison of OT Practice Framework to UT III

    8. Comparison of OT Practice Framework to UT III

    9. Comparison of OT Practice Framework to UT III

    10. Summary of Issues Changed in OT Practice Framework From UT III OT Practice Framework (is now) Areas of Occupation Performance Skills Client Factors (Body functions and Body Structures) Performance Patterns (Roles) Context or Contexts UT III (used to be) Performance Areas Performance Components Performance Components Roles as part of Performance Components Performance Contexts

    11. Summary of Issues Addressed in OT Practice Framework NOT Addressed in UT III Occupations Performance Patterns (Habits and routines) Activity Demands Outcomes

    12. Levels of Evidence OT 653

    13. What is evidence? Support for clinical practice, theory, assessments, and clinical research evolved from systematic study

    15. Randomized Controlled Trials Control group Manipulate a variable Random assignment Double-blinded (persons administering the treatment and evaluating the outcomes are both blinded to who receives what intervention)

    16. Other Kinds of Experimental Designs Studies where groups are small (under 30) Single subject design Lack of blinding of researcher or data collector or data analyzer

    17. Quasi-experimental Studies Studies without a control group Studies without a control group and without random assignment Studies where either pre and post intervention measures are collected, or sometimes just post intervention measures

    18. Exploratory Studies Data collected on a group at one point in time The group studied may be stratified Conclusions are drawn about the trait studied Survey is one form of exploratory design Regression analysis is often used to explore predictive elements of a condition or treatment

    19. Descriptive Studies Studies which describe some aspect of a condition, disease, trait or other Studies where there is no treatment but there is assessment of levels of a given variable Case studies Qualitative research

    20. Methodological Studies Studies which seek to develop psychometric properties for a new assessment tool Reliability studies Validity studies

    21. So how are all these kinds of research worked into an evidence-based review??

    22. Evaluating the Evidence Doing a CAT, systematic review or a meta-analysis All of these formats include deciding which articles to include in your review Ranking kinds of research

    23. One aspect of ranking articles for any evidence-based review is carried out using levels of evidence hierarchies.

    24. Such hierarchies are a way to rank kinds of research studies in a systematic and consistent manner.

    25. Levels of Evidence There are a number of different levels or typologies of evidence Groups like the Cochrane Collection or the PEDRO group out of Australia use very rigorous levels

    26. For your research projects (systematic reviews or meta-analyses) in this class, we will use the Holm’s levels of evidence as one criteria with which to judge articles

    27. Holm’s Levels of Evidence* Level I - Systematic reviews, meta-analytic studies Level II - Randomized controlled trials Level III - Trials without randomization Level IV - Nonexperimental studies from more than one center Level V - Opinions of respected authorities based on clinical evidence, descriptive studies or reports of expert committees (Holm, 2000, p.581)

    28. Level I - Systematic reviews, meta-analytic studies that have already been done by other researchers

    29. Level II - Randomized controlled trials – experimental designs with random assignment, control groups, and large sample size (above 30 clients)

    30. Level III Studies included in Level III are studies without randomization, which includes quasi-experimental design where a control group exists. (FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLASS, PUT SINGLE SUBJECT DESIGNS IN LEVEL III).

    31. Level IV To be classified as Level IV, studies must include descriptive data from more than one site, i.e. multiple classrooms, several clinical or practice sites, more than one university setting….

    32. Level V criteria Qualitative studies Descriptive studies from individual centers White papers, “The Issue is…”, published standards of care

    33. In the Future Presently inclusion of only high levels of evidence often results in finding very limited studies Fields like physical and occupational therapy (even medicine) will have more RCTs available in the future as evidence Use of more rigorous levels of evidence will be mandatory In the meantime, practicing clinicians often need to include levels commiserate with existing evidence (descriptive and exploratory evidence)

More Related