Background. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assists occupational therapists to identify occupational performance problems using a client-centred approach. Since its first publication in 1991, there has been abundant evidence of the ability of the COPM to detect a statistically significant difference as an outcome measure. There has also been a tacit understanding that a difference of 2 points from pre-test to post-test on either Performance or Satisfaction COPM score represents a clinically significant difference. There is however, some confusion about the origins of this claim. Purpose. To ascertain empirical evidence for the claim that a clinically significant difference is a change score ≥2 points. Method. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (1991–2020) for intervention studies using the COPM as an outcome measure and examined intervention type and change scores. Findings. One hundred studies were identified. The COPM was used to assess effectiveness of eight types of occupational therapy interventions. The common belief, however, was not empirically supported that clinical significance can be asserted on the basis of a two-point change in COPM scores. Implications. Further research is needed to test alternative approaches to asserting clinical significance or a minimal clinically important difference.

Musculoskeletal impairments affect one-third of the adult population, are one of the major contributors to lost time from work, and account for one-third of a general practitioner's caseload. These injuries respond well to physiotherapy, but access can be limited in a publicly funded health care system. Improved access to physiotherapy occurs in a collaborative model of care in orthopedic clinics however the extent to which the patient receives similar diagnoses and treatment recommendations has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to determine diagnostic concordance and accuracy, and treatment concordance between a physiotherapist and orthopedic surgeons. Twenty-five subjects in an orthopedic clinic were assessed by a physiotherapist and an orthopedic surgeon. Diagnosis and treatment recommendations were made by each separately. These were compared for concordance between professionals and diagnostic accuracy. The physiotherapist and the orthopedic surgeon had 90% concordance in diagnoses of knee and shoulder impairments, and 75% accuracy when compared to definitive diagnostic methods. They had 87% agreement in treatment recommendations, however, the physiotherapist gave three treatment recommendations per patient where the surgeon gave two. In a collaborative care context therefore, this study suggests, that physiotherapists have similar diagnostic capabilities to orthopedic surgeons, and they will enhance the conservative treatment options offered to orthopedic patients.

A model for occupational therapy has evolved and has come to be referred to as the “Guidelines” model or the Canadian Occupational Performance model. This paper attempts to reformulate information relating to the Guidelines model, to support its use as a conceptual model and a model of practice. Both the conceptual model and model of practice are described in terms of their domain of concern, underlying values and assumptions, concepts and principles. The conceptual model provides a means of understanding occupational performance, while the model of practice offers a way of understanding the relationship between occupational therapy interventions and occupational performance. Both models are evaluated relative to nine criteria derived from the literature. The conceptual model is found to be largely consistent, supportable, comprehensive and useful. The model of practice, however, proves more problematic, with technical, structural and conceptual variances. The paper is intended as a stimulus for discussion and study of this central model of Canadian occupational therapy.

Despite the abundant literature on the burden of rising costs of prescription medications, there is limited research to explore how these costs affect people and the decisions they are forced to make within the context of disability. In this qualitative study we explored strategies adopted, factors influencing, and the impact of some of these strategies to manage the burden of medication cost among persons with disabilities. We interviewed 12 adults with spinal cord injuries living in Canada, using a general inductive approach to analyze the data. We found that before cutting back on medications due to costs, participants generally tried and sought help from the government, employers, and/or their prescribers to improve their drug coverage. The key factors that participants considered while making decisions on the strategies included the cost and perceived importance of medications, their financial status, other competing needs, and their relationship with the prescribers. While some of their efforts were successful, many participants were still not able to obtain their medications as prescribed. In those cases, patients resorted to rationing strategies such as cutting back on medications, other essential needs, or selling assets. These strategies had serious implications on their health, healthcare utilization, and quality of life.