Beyond research literature: Occupational therapists’ perspectives on and uses of “evidence” in everyday practice

Abstract

Background.

Recent literature in evidence-based practice indicates that evidence is defined differently from practice and research perspectives. However, few published works address therapists’ perspectives of the nature and use of evidence in everyday practice.

Purpose.

This study describes the definition, types, and use of evidence from the perspective of six school-based occupational therapists.

Method.

Data were collected through focus groups and participant-submitted documentation and analyzed using qualitative and quantitative content analysis.

Findings.

Two categories of evidence emerged: internalized evidence and evidence gathered during the intervention process. Clinical reasoning, identified as a key skill in evidence-based practice, supported the synthesis of therapist internalized evidence with “in-the-moment” evidence gathered from activity, contextual, and occupational analyses of the client.

Implications.

The findings support current literature that has suggested expanding the definition of evidence (i.e., more than research findings alone). Further investigation of evidence building in practice may help in constructing a more inclusive professional culture of evidence-based practice.