Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Benefits and Limitations Highlighted Using the Delphi Method and Principal Component Analysis
Table 1
Items retained following the first expert consultation.
Interests
Limits
Favors the occupancy-centered approach Identifies the person’s specific problems Promotes dialogue Enables confidence building Evaluates performance and satisfaction Studies the activities in the usual living context Promotes the negotiated implementation of objectives Gives the person a voice gives the caregiver a voice Promotes the therapist’s positioning Promotes the person’s decision Allows the person to understand the problems of the person’s daily life Puts the person back at the centre of concerns of caregivers Provides a reassessment Promotes awareness of everyday problems Considers the environment through the person’s discourse Identifies the person’s representations Provides arguments for team syntheses Gives a rating of the importance of the difficulty of performance and satisfaction Encourages the person’s commitment Encourages collaborative work Allows for self-evaluation and self-assessment. Evaluation for users Allows for the framing of the practice Allows for the measurement of the results of the intervention Encourages the person’s involvement Gives the person back the power to decide on his or her objectives Allows for the targeting of objectives for the entire team Participates in the occupational therapy diagnosis Allows for the needs assessment of people and activities that make sense Allows for the implementation of negotiated objectives Gives a framework to guide the interview Objectively evaluates the impact of the intervention Helps to identify the role/area of the occupational therapist Promotes the implementation of COOP Leaves a space for exchange and expression of one’s desires Enables empowerment of the person and the occupational therapist Allows the client’s voice to be heard (person, group, organization) Opens up new areas of support
Pathocentric approach Organizational system of the institutes Institutional functioning Ignorance of our actions Ignorance of the occupation-centered approach The financing and reimbursement system Presence of certain biases depending on the therapist’s attitude Difficulty in elaborating or making quotations for patients Poor understanding of the scales by the patient The support of the whole team Patient adherence to the numerical scoring system Patients wishing to recover lost functions Communication disorders Attention, comprehension, or major behavioral problems Anosognosia or denial of difficulties Refusal or passive opposition of the team to this tool Failure to return the patient home prior to assessment Lifestyle habits that indirectly affect his health. The goals most often set by the doctor or therapist Lack of knowledge by occupational therapists in France Ignorance of actions centered on the needs of the person The time spent for the interview The certainty in France that rehabilitation must come first The great difficulty of accepting disability Lack of supervision and monitoring The discrepancy with the request of the family and friends and the person concerned Adapted question formulation The use of the word “occupation” The quotation is difficult to explain The apathy of people to integrate this approach What little French scientific data there is on the subject Ignorance of these models in initial training
