Postsecondary institutions are seeing an increased prevalence of student mental health concerns and disabilities, highlighting the need for campus-based approaches that support student well-being. While college campuses provide many services to support students, occupational therapists are largely absent from these support systems, despite growing interest in this emerging field of practice. This program description and implementation case study examines preliminary indicators of feasibility for the WILL Thrive program, which delivered occupational therapy (OT) services on a college campus through a Level II fieldwork placement. Feasibility was examined across domains of acceptability, demand and implementation using an integrated approach combining a needs assessment, service development and process evaluation. Data sources included environmental observations, surveys, stakeholder interviews and process evaluation measures, including service delivery tracking, referral patterns, and resource utilization. Referrals and service utilization in this case were most frequently observed among students reporting neurodevelopmental and mental health-related functional challenges, providing preliminary indicators of potential service users, though a small, heterogeneous sample size limits generalizability. Referral patterns and engagement from the wellness center and accessibility staff highlight preliminary strengths of the program, including early indicators of acceptability and demand. In contrast, implementation barriers were also identified, including limited campus-wide understanding of the OT scope and role and constraints in on-campus OT supervision. Findings offer early, exploratory signals of feasibility for integrating OT services through an OT fieldwork II model and suggest that OT may complement existing campus supports by addressing participation-focused, functionally orientated needs. Results should be viewed as preliminary and inform future implementation studies that include systematic outcome measures, comparative analysis with existing services, and broader assessment across diverse higher education contexts.
Brockway et al. (Fri,) studied this question.