Scanlan Justin Newton, Meredith Pamela J, Haracz Kirsti, Ennals Priscilla, Pépin Geneviève, Webster Jayne S, Arblaster Karen, Wright Shelley
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia.
Allied Health Research Support, Mental Health Services, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
Aust Occup Ther J. 2017 Dec;64(6):436-447. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12397. Epub 2017 Jun 29.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Occupational therapy programs must prepare graduates for work in mental health. However, this area of practice is complex and rapidly changing. This study explored the alignment between educational priorities identified by occupational therapists practising in mental health and level of coverage of these topics in occupational therapy programs in Australia and New Zealand.
Surveys were distributed to heads of all occupational therapy programs across Australia and New Zealand. The survey included educational priorities identified by occupational therapists in mental health from a previous study. Respondents were requested to identify the level of coverage given to each of these priorities within their curriculum. These data were analysed to determine a ranking of educational topics in terms of level of coverage in university programs.
Responses were received for 19 programs from 16 universities. Thirty-four topics were given 'High-level coverage' in university programs, and these were compared against the 29 topics classified as 'Essential priorities' by clinicians. Twenty topics were included in both the 'Essential priorities' and 'High-level coverage' categories. Topics considered to be 'Essential priorities' by clinicians which were not given 'High-level coverage' in university programs included the following: mental health fieldwork experiences; risk assessment and management; professional self-care resilience and sensory approaches.
While there appears to be overall good alignment between mental health curricula and priorities identified by practising occupational therapists, there are some discrepancies. These discrepancies are described and establish a strong foundation for further discussion between clinicians, academics and university administration to support curriculum review and revision.
背景/目的:职业治疗课程必须使毕业生为从事心理健康工作做好准备。然而,这一实践领域复杂且变化迅速。本研究探讨了在心理健康领域执业的职业治疗师所确定的教育重点与澳大利亚和新西兰职业治疗课程中这些主题的涵盖程度之间的一致性。
向澳大利亚和新西兰所有职业治疗课程的负责人发放了调查问卷。该调查包括先前一项研究中职业治疗师在心理健康方面确定的教育重点。要求受访者确定其课程中对每个重点的涵盖程度。对这些数据进行分析,以确定大学课程中教育主题在涵盖程度方面的排名。
收到了来自16所大学的19个课程的回复。大学课程中有34个主题被给予“高水平覆盖”,并将这些主题与临床医生归类为“基本重点”的29个主题进行了比较。“基本重点”和“高水平覆盖”类别中都包含20个主题。临床医生认为是“基本重点”但在大学课程中未被给予“高水平覆盖”的主题包括:心理健康实地工作经验;风险评估与管理;职业自我保健、复原力和感官方法。
虽然心理健康课程与执业职业治疗师确定的重点之间总体上似乎有较好的一致性,但仍存在一些差异。描述了这些差异,为临床医生、学者和大学管理层之间进一步讨论以支持课程审查和修订奠定了坚实基础。