Mapping Effectiveness Studies of Occupational Therapy in Africa: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Background: Contextual relevance is an important consideration for evidence-based practice, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the nature of practice may differ from high-income countries. Resources and access to rehabilitation are constrained, and service-users face a range of intersecting challenges to activity and participation.

Aim: To evaluate the body of evidence for the effectiveness of occupational therapy in Africa, and to determine if systematic reviews with meta-analysis and/or meta-synthesis are feasible. Methods and Analysis. We conducted a systematic scoping review of published and grey literature by following PRISMA-ScR guidelines across 13 databases and through personal contact with occupational therapists across Africa. Covidence software was used to manage a blind review process by at least three reviewers per included article. The McMaster Quantitative Review Form, NHMRC levels of evidence, the Cochrane PROGRESS-Plus health equity criteria, and the TIDieR checklist informed data extraction using Microsoft Forms.

Results: The search yielded 4199 articles, of which 45 were included. Evidence in six fields of practice included paediatrics, mental health, physical rehabilitation, hand therapy, work practice, and community development, although the evidence was largely limited to South Africa (93% studies). Levels of evidence varied but included 13 RCTs. In all, 1957 participants were included, ranging in age from 25 days to 99 years, with a wide range of health conditions. Most studies reported a positive outcome for occupational therapy.

Conclusion: Findings suggest a moderate body of evidence to support occupational therapy in Africa. Systematic review with meta-analysis, assessment of risk of bias, and in-depth analysis of specific areas of practice are now required. All effectiveness studies in occupational therapy should include measures of occupational performance or participation, minimum reporting standard checklists should be used more consistently, and effect sizes should be consistently calculated and reported in effectiveness research.