Author(s), year and Participant Approach and Results Conclusions Strengths Limitations title details method Sandell 15 Qualitative. Predetermined categories Understanding the Grounding in No explanation participants, Content analysis. from the OPHI-II used for individual’s life previous literature on of what content (2013) four men, 11 coding. before diagnosis diagnosis. analysis is or it’s Participants allows for theoretical Participating in involved during 1. Occupational Identity: rediscovery of self Process of data underpinnings. Experience of receiving diagnostic Age diagnosis: Involved as an individual collection and diagnosis allowed for experience: adults years. in discussions of with a disability analysis is No discussion of meaning to be attached to with validating and discovery of transparent. the context or lifelong experience of not neuropsychiatric Recruited from assessment results. new meaning in values of fitting in. Labelling disorders. a neuro Opportunities to occupational roles Quotes used ground researchers and problems allowed accept or decline and relationships the conclusions in potential impact outpatient diagnosis. Able to with others. the data. of researcher on 2. Occupational clinic in select services that data. competence: Availability Sweden. they wanted. Able Support and Data examined by an of support and choice to give suggestions validation provided external researcher Not able to were essential.. 10 received a for services not during diagnostic with theoretical and separate out diagnosis of offered. experience allowed practical knowledge ADHD and ASD 3. Social Environment: ASC and participants to of the measures used results. Positive diagnostic seven of Swedish version of understand others to ensure credibility experience because of ADHD. the OPHI-II used to and improve of results. Authors focus on the client as a consider experience relationships. acknowledge person and being treated of diagnosis, with Implications of results are not with understanding and the critical event of Participation in the research for services generalizable and respect. focus being the diagnostic process discussed and areas that further
Author(s), year and title Participant details Approach and method Results Conclusions Strengths Limitations Sandell (2013) Participating in diagnostic experience: adults with neuropsychiatric disorders. 15 participants, four men, 11 Age years. Recruited from a neuro outpatient clinic in Sweden. 10 received a diagnosis of ASC and seven of ADHD. Qualitative. Content analysis. Participants involved during diagnosis: Involved in discussions of validating assessment results. Opportunities to accept or decline diagnosis. Able to select services that they wanted. Able to give suggestions for services not offered. Swedish version of the OPHI-II used to consider experience of diagnosis, with the critical event of focus being the Predetermined categories from the OPHI-II used for coding. 1. Occupational Identity: Experience of receiving diagnosis allowed for meaning to be attached to lifelong experience of not fitting in. Labelling problems allowed 2. Occupational competence: Availability of support and choice were essential.. 3. Social Environment: Positive diagnostic experience because of focus on the client as a person and being treated with understanding and respect. Understanding the individual’s life before diagnosis allows for rediscovery of self as an individual with a disability and discovery of new meaning in occupational roles and relationships with others. Support and validation provided during diagnostic experience allowed participants to understand others and improve relationships. Participation in the diagnostic process Grounding in previous literature on diagnosis. Process of data collection and analysis is transparent. Quotes used ground the conclusions in the data. Data examined by an external researcher with theoretical and practical knowledge of the measures used to ensure credibility of results. Implications of research for services discussed and areas No explanation of what content analysis is or it’s theoretical underpinnings. No discussion of the context or values of researchers and potential impact of researcher on data. Not able to separate out ADHD and ASD results. Authors acknowledge results are not generalizable and that further
Claire%20King%20E-thesis%202015.docx