Qualitative analysis highlights essential advocacy competencies in occupational therapists, indicating systemic barriers must be addressed.
Introduction: Advocacy is a cornerstone of occupational therapy practice, yet systemic barriers and complex interpersonal dynamics often hinder its effective implementation. This study was aimed at exploring the essential elements that occupational therapists perceive as essential for advocating effectively on behalf of the individuals they collaborate with. Methods: Eleven occupational therapists participated in a 3‐month educational program grounded in theatre pedagogy, an experiential learning approach designed to foster self‐reflection and practical skill application. Following the program, semistructured interviews were conducted, and the data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key elements of advocacy. Findings: The analysis revealed three core themes: occupational justice awareness, creativity and flexibility, and perspective expansion. Participants highlighted the importance of recognizing systemic inequities and promoting inclusive practices to achieve occupational justice. Creativity and adaptability were identified as essential for tailoring advocacy strategies to diverse contexts and challenges. Perspective expansion, encompassing cultural humility and reflective practice, emerged as vital for understanding the multifaceted dynamics of advocacy and the evolving roles of therapists in addressing personal needs. Conclusion: This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on advocacy in occupational therapy by identifying specific competencies that enhance advocacy efforts. The findings underscore the need for targeted training programs and resources that integrate experiential learning methodologies to strengthen these competencies. By cultivating these skills, occupational therapists can become more effective agents of change, advancing relationship‐focused care and societal equity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Panagiotis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: