Public policy is an important feature of occupational therapy practice. Occupational therapy organizations have a mandate to engage in policy processes to improve the conditions for clients, including the nature of care received.
Purpose.
Describe the approaches that Canadian occupational therapy organizations use to engage with and impact public policy.
Methods.
This study used interpretive description methodology. Participants were recruited from Canadian occupational therapy professional organizations. Participants shared their experiences and perspectives on policy engagement through semi-structured interviews. Data was analyzed inductively.
Findings.
Engagement with policy involved reaching out (building relationships, educating practitioners about policy and occupational therapy contributions, and developing statements), and reaching in (consulting with occupational therapists and generating data informing policy).
Implications.
Occupational therapy organizations can share and coordinate approaches to impact public policy and advocate for both clients and the profession. Future research can expand this analysis in other contexts to generate a deeper understanding of engagement.
CairneyP. (2012). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues. Basingstoke and Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
CairneyP.WeibleC. (2017). The new policy sciences: Combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis. Policy Sciences: Integrating Knowledge and Practice to Advance Human Dignity, 50(4), 619–627. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9304-2
DyminickA.WandersmanA.OsherD.GrigorescuVHuangL. (2014). Willing, able, ready: Basics and policy implications of readiness as a key component for implementation of evidence-based interventions [issue brief]. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/77076/ib_Readiness.pdf
9.
EdwardsH.DiretteD. (2010). The relationship between professional identity and burnout among occupational therapists. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 24(2), 119–129. http://doi.org/10.3109/07380570903329610
10.
EvertssonL.LindqvistR. (2005). Welfare state and women’s work: The professional projects of nurses and occupational therapists in Sweden. Nursing Inquiry, 12(4), 256–268. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2005.00289.x
11.
FinlaysonM. L. (2013). Muriel driver memorial lecture 2013: Embracing our role as change agents. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 80(4), 205–213. http://doi.org/10.1177/0008417413499505).
12.
GraffM. J.AdangE. M.Vernooij-DassenM. J.DekkerJ.JönssonL.ThijssenM.HoefnagelsW.RikkertM. G. O. (2008). Community occupational therapy for older patients with dementia and their care givers: cost effectiveness study. BMJ, 336(7636), 134–138. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39408.481898.BE
13.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). SAGE Publications.
14.
HemmingssonH.JonssonH. (2005). The issue is- An occupational perspective on the concept of participation in the international classification of functioning, disability and health- Some critical remarks. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59(5), 569–576. http://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.59.5.569
15.
HuntM.R. (2009). Strengths and challenges in the use on interpretive description: Reflections arising from a study of the moral experience of health professionals in humanitarian work. Qualitative Health Research, 19(9), 1284–92. http://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309344612
16.
JossensM. O. (1997). Strategies for the development of contemporary nursing policy. Journal of Professional Nursing: Official Journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 13(4). http://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(97)80092-0
17.
KingdonJ. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies(Updated 2nd ed.). Longman.
18.
LavisJ. (2006). Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. Journal of Continuing Education in The Health Professions, 26(1), 37–45. http://doi.org/10.1002/chp.49
19.
LawM.CooperB.StrongS.StewartD.RigbyP.LettsL. (1996). The person-environment-occupation model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(1), 9–23. http://doi.org/10.1177/000841749606300103
20.
LeblancS.KinsellaE. (2016). Toward epistemic justice: A critically reflexive examination of “sanism” and implications for knowledge generation. Studies in Social Justice, 10(1), 59–78. http://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v10i1.1324
21.
LencuchaR.Shikako-ThomasK. (2019). Examining the intersection of policy and occupational therapy: A scoping review. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 86(3), 185–195. http://doi.org/10.1177/0008417419833183
22.
MackenzieN.KnipeS. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Education Research, 16(2), 193–205.
23.
MahaffeyL.BursonK. A.JanuszewskiC.PittsD. B.PreissnerK. (2015). Role for occupational therapy in community mental health: Using policy to advance scholarship of ractice. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 29(4), 397–410. http://doi.org/10.3109/07380577.2015.1051689
NilssonI.TownsendE. (2010). Occupational justice-bridging theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 17(1), 57–63. http://doi.org/10.3109/11038120903287182
26.
OliverK.InnvarS.LorencT.WoodmanJ.ThomasJ. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1). http://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2
27.
RivardA.HollisV.DarrahJ.MadillH.WarrenS. (2005). Therapists’ perspectives on the management and delivery of occupational therapy and physical therapy services. Healthcare Management Forum, 18(2), 9–13. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60348-1
28.
RowlesG. D. (1991). Beyond performance: Being in place as a component of occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 265–271. http://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.265
29.
ShentonA. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. http://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
30.
StreeckW.SchmitterP. (1985). Community, market, state-and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. European Sociological Review, 1(2), 119–138. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036381
ThorneS.KirkhamS. R.O’Flynn-MageeK. (2004). The analytic challenge in interpretive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300101
33.
TorjmanS. (2005). What is policy?Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
TriccoA.CardosoR.ThomasS.MotiwalaS.SullivanS.KealeyM.HemmelgarnB.OuimetM.HillmerM.PerrierL.ShepperdS.StrausS. (2016). Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: A scoping review. Implementation Science, 11(1), 4–4. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1
36.
WeibleC.SabatierP. (2018). Theories of the policy process(4th ed.). Westview Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
