Affiliations: [a] University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| [b] School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA
| [c] Assistant Professor and Director of the Post-Professional Doctorate of Occupational Therapy Program, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Gillian Burgess, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178, USA. Tel.: +1 478 227 3896; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Oculomotor dysfunction affects a significant number of adults with neurological conditions and binocular diplopia is a common symptom which impacts an individual’s ability to participate in meaningful daily activities. Occupational therapists use partial and complete occlusion to minimize binocular diplopia, however a review of the literature reflected a lack of standardized protocol for each intervention technique. The purpose of this study was to examine occupational therapists’ perspectives on the use of partial and complete occlusion and the clinical reasoning process used. METHODS:An electronic survey was distributed to occupational therapists working in a variety of practice settings. The survey contained questions relating to demographics, the selected occlusion technique, and clinical reasoning for that selection. RESULTS:More than half of the 106 respondents used partial occlusion more frequently than complete occlusion. There was no correlation between respondent experience and self-report of competence in managing binocular diplopia. Respondents based their clinical reasoning on available evidence, client factors, and clinical expertise. CONCLUSION:Respondents offered conflicting perspectives on each occlusion technique. Future studies are required to examine which occlusion technique benefits clients.
