Extension, austerity, and emergence: Themes identified from a global scoping review of non‐urban occupational therapy services

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Rural communities contribute to national wellbeing, identities, economies, and social fabrics yet experience increased risk of mortality, morbidity, and disability, coupled with lower levels of income, formal education, and employment than urban citizens. Despite higher need, occupational therapy services are maldistributed to urban locations. Publications about non-urban services discuss predominantly outreach-based, individualist, rehabilitation for specified diagnoses/age groups. However, given this population level inequity, it is unclear why individualist focussed services are more commonly discussed. Understanding intentions expressed in publications about non-urban service design may identify assumptions/limitations to current approaches and contribute to improved future services.

METHODS Each of 117 publications identified in a scoping review was read by two reviewers to independently identify themes. Provisional themes were discussed and modified in an iterative process to develop final themes/subthemes. The first author reinterrogated the publications and coded data to identify relevant examples to support the identified themes.

RESULTS Three key themes and nine subthemes were identified. Hegemonic perspectives were found in the themes (i) Extension of urban practice and (ii) Austerity, particularly in the Global North. Non-urban services were typically extended to non-urban contexts underpinned by austerity and neoliberal values such that non-urban persons and their context were problematised rather than service or funding design. A counter-hegemonic perspective was found in the theme (iii) Responses to situational realities more commonly in Global South publications, which valued non-urban contexts, and focussed on developing non-urban communities and promoting justice.

CONCLUSION The hegemonic paradigm links occupational therapy services with neoliberal notions of individualism, private provision of care, and efficiency/market value, rather than the occupational therapy values for justice. The profession must consider our role in perpetuating injustice for non-urban people and consider if and how more contextually tailored counter hegemonic place-based paradigms can be developed from and with regional, rural, and remote practice.