Untitled[edit]

it is a bad idea to merge this page with the occupational therapist page. 1) an occupational therapist is a practitioner at the masters level at a minumun. It is a internationally recognized profession that is every bit as legitimate as any other health care professsion.Any page listed as occupational therapist on wikipedia should be about those practitioners... 2) Occupational Therapy is a theraputic modality that is supported by occupational science which is a recognized evidence based , scientific practice 3) occupational science should ALSO have it's own seperate page because the body of work is so vast it cannot be effectively merged and sufficently explained. 4) there are five major practice models and an infinite choice of theraputic modalities in occupational therapy...you cannot possibly sufficently explain these models in a single paragraph or two — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.172.23 (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does an occupational therapist do occupational therapy, or not? If the answer is yes, then the pages belong together. If no, then can you please explain the difference and why they share a name? Ambiguosity (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serious Editing and Rewrite Needed[edit]

This page needs attention from someone with writing and editing skills and a basic understanding (need not be an expert) of the subject. As a layperson, I came to the page to get a quick understnading of what Occupational Therapists do and what Occuptional Therapy is. I have read the page through twice and still have no clearer idea then when I looked it up. The writing here is very "inside" and reads like it was written by an enthusiastic OT student anxious to demonstrate their inside knowledge to a professor. It lacks the clarity and directness an encyclopedia article should have. Please, someone at least rework the introduction section.172.56.29.10 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree with the above comment. This page seems to be a copy of the course information prepared for college open day, targeted to someone who asked for that one pamphlet they know you have under the counter. Simply making sense of the first paragraph was a chore, but I did not want to delete too much before someone who 'has a clue' reviews and refines it.
If that doesn't occur, I will assume that the article is open for amateurs to hone our 'skills'. Ambiguosity (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the page needs more work. Being an occupational therapist myself I would feel proud to have a page better written. At least some references are inaccurate and I have been unable to find the source of some references. Just an example could not find the source of the following in text cite: (Bazyk & Downing, 2017) It is very difficult for me to contribute since English is barely my second language. Enrique Peñalolen (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evaluation for Writing for Biologists Class[edit]

Lead section: The lead section is understandable and summarizes the articles main points. The intro outlines the purpose of an occupational therapist and defines the roles they have in the health care system. The lead section also gives a brief and short overview of what sort of clients an occupational therapist works with. The lead section does need to improve its definition of what an occupational therapist is. I know users from above mentioned that they didn't feel they understood what an occupational therapist is after reading the article. Having a more clear definition at the beginning of the article of what an occupational therapist is and including in a few examples might give reads a more concise idea and understanding. A suggestion might be to use and cite the definition given by the American Occupational Therapy Association which states, "In its simplest terms, occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants help people across the lifespan participate in the things they want and need to do through the therapeutic use of everyday activities (occupations). Common occupational therapy interventions include helping children with disabilities to participate fully in school and social situations, helping people recovering from injury to regain skills, and providing supports for older adults experiencing physical and cognitive changes. Occupational therapy services typically include".

Structure: The article is well organized with appropriate headings and subheadings. The article works in chronological order of history with the information provided in the article. The article starts with the overview, then history, philosophy, areas of practice and so forth. Each heading title is appropriately labeled for the information within that section. Images used within the article are appropriate to the section in which they are placed. There are sections that need to be fixed when it comes to structure though. The last section labeled "occupational therapist", needs to be included into the lead section labeled "occupational therapy". An occupational therapist provides occupational therapy. They are not separate. Therefore they need to be included together.

Balance: The balance of the article could be improved. Topics including history, philosophy, ICF and areas of occupation have sections that are abundant in information. Topics that lack substance or length in information is health and wellness, process, and enabling occupation. Specific sections that could use editing is the section labeled "process". This section mentions that there are 11 stages in the occupational therapy process, but the section lacks in providing what the 11 stages are.

Coverage: Article is written in a non-biased voice. The article is written with facts and reliable sources to back up the facts given. There is no personal opinion or persuasive voice, but rather a clear cut and concise approach to providing factual information, history and knowledge. Though the article does provide sections about each concentration of occupational therapy, the article does lack examples of therapy practices. People tend to look up "occupational therapy" articles in order to gain a better understanding of what they do. Though this article does provide good history overview of the profession, it needs improvement in giving specific examples of how occupational therapists use their profession to help individuals. How might an occupational therapist assess an individual who is paraplegic and then use steps to address the problem? These are questions that might be good to address in the article and provide information on.

Reliable source: There are numerous links to authoritative publication and significantly long list of footnotes for citations. These citations come from credible sources. Each fact within the article is appropriately cited. An example of a journal used by this author was American Occupational Therapy Association which was used multiple times for information. Other credible sources used were Australian Journal of Occupational Therapy and British Journal of Occupational Therapy. This gives a global view to the article because it includes in views from occupational therapy associations from around the world as opposed to just using information from the American Journal of Occupational Therapy. The number of sources used was 93, therefore I feel that from this amount of sources there was a balanced use of sources.

132.235.217.13 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm interested in improving this article[edit]

I am knowledgeable in this area and plan on trying to improve this article over the next few days.

Some problems I see: - the first section lists too many examples of what an OT is and should be more concise. - too much focus on OT in the US - section on theoretical frameworks is incomplete. I think it should be its own article (I completed two university graduate courses on this topic alone) - there are so many "areas of practice" of OT that making a thorough list would be quite long

Grazioso2 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this article for Good Article Status[edit]

Consistent formating of refs are needed. For example I would use "Template:cite journal" etc consistently.
Many paragraphs are unreferenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Occupational therapy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 10:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I will take up this review. As stated by Doc James, at first blush many parts of the article are unreferenced. This article contains many lists and some are strangely formatted. It is also US-heavy in the introductory history section. For these reasons (And given that the referencing hasn't been addressed since May) will quick fail this article.

Thanks for the nomination, but please remember Rome wasn't built in a day and good things come in time :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work therapy as a synonym[edit]

I redirected work therapy here. This term should be also mention in this article, given that these two terms are synonyms--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorporating an attachment theory perspective[edit]

Hello all,

I have added two sections relating to attachment theory under the current Theoretical frameworks/Generic models/Occupation-focused practice models/biopsychosocial models. I included references to the Dynamic-maturational model of attachment and adaptation (DMM), which is arguably the state-of-the-art attachment model, and references to Pamela Meredith's work in Australia. Éadaoin Bhreathnach in N. Ireland has done a lot of work developing her Sensory Attachment Intervention model, but has not published about it, as of 2021. I wonder if the biopsychosocial model section should be listed under a subheading 1 category? It doesn't seem to be a subcategory of "Occupation-focused practice models", and seems to be a useful and complex topic on it's own. ConflictScience (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories