The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in Denmark - state of the art
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in Denmark - state of the art
The COPM is a widely used tool in occupational therapy, and Anette Enemark has done a significant amount of research in this Canadian measurement. In this paper, she shares the questions that made research in the COPM her mission - and she provides the answers she found.
The COPM is a widely used tool in occupational therapy, and Anette Enemark has done a significant amount of research in this Canadian measurement. In this paper, she shares the questions that made research in the COPM her mission - and she provides the answers she found.
My story
In 1997, I came to the occupational therapy program in Copenhagen from a position as clinical supervisor on a hospital characterized by a body-oriented focus in our occupational therapy intervention. The following year in 1998, the World Federation of Occupational Therapists held the world congress in Ottawa, Canada, where some of my colleagues participated. The returnees' enthusiasm for the newly developed Canadian occupational therapy models and the associated measurement, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), was contagious.
However, although the COPM presented us with an occupational perspective, and thus seemed like the perfect fit for occupational therapy, I was skeptical. Therefore, as I began my further education, the COPM became the focus of my research. Till now, I together with a range of collaborators have published my Ph.D. thesis and 12 papers, of which the majority contributes to this paper (1–9) (see Table A).
Thus, in this paper, I will answer the four questions, I raised:
1)Does the COPM promote a client-centered practice – do we find the client’s occupational wishes?
The off-spring of the COPM was the Canadian development work of describing occupational therapy practice, which began in the late 1970s (10–12). Recognizing that occupational therapists' focus has to be on people's occupations, the Canadian occupational therapists were aware that client involvement was necessary: We cannot know what is important to other people without asking them.
To describe a therapeutic relationship, that involved the clients, the Canadian occupational therapists introduced the American psychotherapist Carl Rogers' approach from the 1950s-60s: Client-centered practice (CCP) (13).
Today, CCP form the core of the occupational therapy profession (11,14,15). In the meantime, an overall paradigmatic shift in the health-care sector har contributed place user involvement at the top of the agenda (11,14,15). As our study of COPM shows that COPM promotes a CCP (see Table 1), it only makes the use more current (1–4).
The COPM is a widely used tool in occupational therapy, and Anette Enemark has done a significant amount of research in this Canadian measurement. In this paper, she shares the questions that made research in the COPM her mission - and she provides the answers she found.
The COPM is a widely used tool in occupational therapy, and Anette Enemark has done a significant amount of research in this Canadian measurement. In this paper, she shares the questions that made research in the COPM her mission - and she provides the answers she found.
My story
In 1997, I came to the occupational therapy program in Copenhagen from a position as clinical supervisor on a hospital characterized by a body-oriented focus in our occupational therapy intervention. The following year in 1998, the World Federation of Occupational Therapists held the world congress in Ottawa, Canada, where some of my colleagues participated. The returnees' enthusiasm for the newly developed Canadian occupational therapy models and the associated measurement, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), was contagious.
However, although the COPM presented us with an occupational perspective, and thus seemed like the perfect fit for occupational therapy, I was skeptical. Therefore, as I began my further education, the COPM became the focus of my research. Till now, I together with a range of collaborators have published my Ph.D. thesis and 12 papers, of which the majority contributes to this paper (1–9) (see Table A).
Thus, in this paper, I will answer the four questions, I raised:
1)Does the COPM promote a client-centered practice – do we find the client’s occupational wishes?
The off-spring of the COPM was the Canadian development work of describing occupational therapy practice, which began in the late 1970s (10–12). Recognizing that occupational therapists' focus has to be on people's occupations, the Canadian occupational therapists were aware that client involvement was necessary: We cannot know what is important to other people without asking them.
To describe a therapeutic relationship, that involved the clients, the Canadian occupational therapists introduced the American psychotherapist Carl Rogers' approach from the 1950s-60s: Client-centered practice (CCP) (13).
Today, CCP form the core of the occupational therapy profession (11,14,15). In the meantime, an overall paradigmatic shift in the health-care sector har contributed place user involvement at the top of the agenda (11,14,15). As our study of COPM shows that COPM promotes a CCP (see Table 1), it only makes the use more current (1–4).
Table 1:
The positive effects on client-centered practice achieved when using the COPM (View as PDF here).Referencer
1. Enemark Larsen A, Carlsson G. Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an admission and outcome measure in interdisciplinary community-based geriatric rehabilitation. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19(2):204–13.
2. Enemark Larsen A, Morville A Le, Hansen T. Translating the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure to Danish, addressing face and content validity. Scand J Occup Ther. 2019;26(1):33–45.
3. Enemark Larsen A, Rasmussen B, Christensen JR. Enhancing a Client-Centred Practice with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int. 2018;5956301:13–5.
4. Enemark Larsen A, Winge CJ, Christensen JR. Clinical utility of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Scand J Occup Ther. 2019;3:1–12.
5. Enemark Larsen A, Wehberg S, Christensen JR. The validity of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int. 2020;1309104:1–11.
6. Enemark Larsen A, Wehberg S, Christensen JR. Looking into the Content of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM): A Danish Cross-Sectional Study. Occup Ther Int. 2020;9573950:1–11.
7. Enemark Larsen A, Wehberg S, Christensen JR. The realibility of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Br J Occup Ther. 2020;submitted.
8. Enemark-Larsen A, Christensen J, Wehberg S. The responsiveness of the Danish Version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Submitted February 2021. 2021.
9. Enemark-Larsen A. Exploring client-centred practice in Danish occupational therapy and the influence of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The University of Southern Denmark; 2019.
10. Townsend E. Enabling Occupation: An Occupational Therapy Perspective. 1st ed. Townsend E, editor. Ottawa: anadian Association of Occupational Therapists, CAOT; 1997.
11. Townsend E, Polatajko HJ. Enabling Occupation II: Advancing an Occupational Therapy vision for Health, Well-being and Justice through Occupation. 2th ed. Townsend E, Polatajko HJ, editors. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists; 2013.
12. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko HJ, Pollock N. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), 5th edition - revised. 5th. COPM Inc.; 2019.
13. Rogers CR. Client-centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1951.
14. Sumsion T, Law M. A review of evidence on the conceptual elements. Can J Occup Ther. 2006;73(3):153–62.
15. Enemark Larsen A, Adamsen HN, Boots S, Delkus CG, Pedersen LL, Christensen JR. A survey on client-centered practice among Danish occupational therapists. Scand J Occup Ther. 2018;0(0):1–15.
16. Townsend EA, Polatajko HJ. Menneskelig Aktivitet II (Enabling Occupation II in Danish). 1th ed. København: Munksgaard; 2013.
17. Smart A. A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2006;18(5):377–82.
18. Bjørkedal STB, Torsting AMB, Møller T. Rewarding yet demanding: Client perspectives on enabling occupations during early stages of recovery from schizophrenia. Scand J Occup Ther. 2016;23(2):97–106.
19. Gustafsson L, Mitchell G, Fleming J, Price G. Clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Br J Occup Ther. 2012;75(7):337–42.
20. Wressle E, Marcusson J, Henriksson C. Clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure - Swedish version. Can J Occup Ther. 2002;69.
21. Capdevila E, Rodríguez-Bailón M, Kapanadze M, Portell M. Clinical Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in Older Adult Rehabilitation and Nursing Homes: Perceptions among Occupational Therapists and Physiotherapists in Spain. Occup Ther Int. 2020;2020.
22. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine. 1. Cambridge: Cambride University Press; 2011.
23. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko HJ, Pollock N. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. 5th ed. Canadian Assiciation of Occupational Therapists, CAOT; 2015.
24. Law M, Carswell A, Polatajko HJ. Tha Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Danish Veriosn. 5.ed. rev. Copenhagen: Ergoterapeutforeningen [Danish Association of Occupational Therapy]; 2020.