Perceptions of evidence-based practice: A survey of Australian occupational therapists

Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires clinicians to access, appraise and integrate research literature with clinical experience and clients' perspectives. Currently, little is known about occupational therapists' attitudes to EBP, their perception of implementation barriers or their educational needs. A questionnaire reflecting these issues was sent to a proportionate random sample of 1491 members of the national professional occupational therapy association, OT AUSTRALIA. The questionnaire was completed by 649 (44%) participants. Occupational therapists were positive about EBP with most (96%) agreeing that EBP is important to occupational therapy. Although 56% used research to make clinical decisions, more relied on clinical experience (96%), information from continuing education (82%) and colleagues (80%). Lack of time, evidence and skills were identified as the main barriers to the implementation of EBP. Over half (52%) expressed strong interest in EBP skills training, and most (80%) indicated an interest in the availability of brief summaries of evidence. Targeted educational initiatives, resources and systems are needed to support EBP in occupational therapy.

Reliability of scores between stroke patients and significant others on the Reintegration to Normal Living (RNL) Index

Purpose: This study measured reliability between stroke patients' and significant others' scores on items on the Reintegration to Normal Living (RNL) Index and whether there were any scoring biases. Method The 11-item RNL Index was administered to 57 pairs of patients and significants six months after stroke rehabilitation. The index was scored using a 10-point visual analogue scale. Patient and significant other demographic information and data on patients' clinical, functional and cognitive status were collected. Reliability was measured using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and percent agreement. Results: Overall poor reliability was found for the RNL Index total score (ICC=.36, 95% CI. 07 to .59) and the daily functioning subscale (ICC=.24, 95% CI -.003 to .46) and moderate reliability was found for the perception of self subscale (ICC=.55, 95 % CI .28 to .73). There was a moderate bias for patients to rate themselves as achieving better reintegration than was indicated by significant others, although no demographic or clinical factors were associated with this bias. Exact match agreement was best for the subjective items and worse for items reflecting mobility around the community and participation in a work activity. Conclusions: Caution is needed when interpreting patient information reported by significant others on the RNL Index. The use of a shorter scale to rate the RNL Index requires investigation.