Participatory citizenship: Critical perspectives on client-centred occupational therapy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This article aims to discuss client-centred practice, the current dominant approach within occupational therapy, in relation to participatory citizenship. Occupational therapists work within structures and policies that set boundaries on their engagement with clients, while working with complex, multidimensional social realities. METHODS: The authors present a critical discussion shaped by their research, including a survey, discussions at workshops at international conferences, and critical engagement with the literature on occupational therapy, occupation, and citizenship. CONCLUSION: A focus on citizenship suggests reframing professional development based on the participation in public life of people as citizens of their society. While occupational therapists often refer to clients in the context of communities, groups, families, and wider society, the term client-centred practice typically represents a particular view of the individual and may sometimes be too limited in application for a more systemic and societal approach. SIGNIFICANCE: The authors question the individual focus which has, until recently, been typical of client-centred occupational therapy. Placing citizenship at the core of intervention is a transformative process that assumes all people are citizens and conceives of health as a collective issue, influencing the way we educate, do research, and practise.

Community-university partnerships in occupational therapy education: a preliminary exploration of practice in a European context.

AIM: To explore community-university partnerships in occupational therapy education in Europe. METHOD: Educators from Europe were invited to participate in the study. Data were collected using a questionnaire designed for the study. Eleven completed questionnaires were included. Descriptive statistics were generated from quantitative data while qualitative data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: The majority of participants reported that community-university partnerships were part of the third year of undergraduate occupational therapy studies. Partners were from a broad range of sectors. The activities undertaken were typically focused on specific target groups within the community. Three main themes emerged from the qualitative analysis (i) instigating community-university partnerships, (ii) processes of creating and sustaining partnerships and (iii) perceived outcomes of community-university partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of community-university partnerships in Europe generating some useful findings. Clarification is needed regarding the use of the term community-university partnership. Educators are called upon to consider how partnerships are embedded into curricula and to address issues of sustainability. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Healthcare education should prepare rehabilitation professionals to collaborate with diverse communities. Community--university collaborations appear to offer opportunities to support students to develop competences for future community orientated practice. Key issues to be considered include choice of pedagogical approach, issues of reciprocity and sustainability.