Editorial: Mapping the journey: creating and capturing research impact in occupational therapy

Le résumé fourni par la source

Occupational therapy research has the potential to create meaningful change, not only in academic settings but also in the everyday lives of persons and communities (Royal College of Occupational Therapists, RCOT, 2019; Reed et al., 2021). Yet, how can researchers determine whether their work has truly made a difference? Has it influenced occupational therapy practice or education, and has that change ultimately improved outcomes for those receiving occupational therapy in both individual and community settings? Rather than viewing impact as a final outcome, it should be understood as a continuous process, a journey that begins with research design and extends through collaboration, dissemination and implementation. Mapping this journey enables researchers to strategically align their work with real-world benefits for persons, communities and the profession. This editorial explores how researchers can create and capture impact throughout the research process and highlights strategies for doing so across diverse research paradigms.Recognising the importance of embedding impact throughout the research process, the Research in Occupational Therapy and Occupational Science Foundation (ROTOS), one of the three branches of the Occupational Therapy Europe Foundation, plays a key role in supporting this journey. With a vision to improve lives across Europe, ROTOS brings together occupational therapy and occupational science researchers to form a strong, unified voice that highlights the value of these disciplines. Its mission is to foster collaboration, strengthen the visibility of research and maximise its societal and personal impact. By encouraging researchers to integrate impact into their design, implementation and dissemination strategies, ROTOS actively contributes to shaping research that makes a tangible difference (Research in Occupational Therapy and Occupational Science Foundation, ROTOS, 2024).Occupational therapy research is becoming increasingly practice-oriented, looking to effectively bridge the gap between research and practice. The impact of this research arises naturally from its focus on addressing practical challenges in close collaboration with citizens, clients, communities and professionals; developing tools, methods and insights that are directly applicable in everyday settings; strengthening practice and enhancing service delivery; and fostering learning, empowerment and innovation (Gallagher et al., 2023; Kang et al., 2024; McQuaid et al., 2023).Funders and governments increasingly require researchers to demonstrate how their work benefits society, driving a growing emphasis on evaluating non-academic impact (Reed et al., 2021). This emphasis becomes especially apparent during the grant application process, which often include a dedicated section on intended impact. This underscores that impact is not just a final outcome, but a journey, shaped by activities, collaborations and learning processes that drive meaningful and sustainable change (Social Care Institute for Excellence SCIE, 2024).Impact plays an important role across various research paradigms, including empirical-analytical, interpretive and critical-emancipatory approaches (Davies and Fisher, 2018). Within these research paradigms, impact is approached in different ways. In established quantitative and qualitative research, where people’s performance and behaviour are typically observed and measured (research about people), impact requires careful consideration from the outset, including how impact will be defined and how it will be achieved (Reed et al., 2021). In contrast, critical-emancipatory participatory approaches actively involve people in shaping the research process and its outcomes (research with people). Here, impact is not predetermined but emerges through collaborative engagement and is embedded in the methodology itself (Abma et al., 2019). In this editorial, we aim to highlight both perspectives on creating impact through research.Achieving meaningful research impact requires deliberate and early planning, supported by a structured design that integrates impact considerations throughout the research process. By applying backward mapping (Walker and Koroloff, 2007) a way of thinking in which one starts with the end result, the impact is determined by how the activities and outcomes are connected to form the pathways to impact (Social Care Institute for Excellence SCIE, 2024). So, researchers can align study design with intended impacts, whether clinical, societal, economic or organisational. Quantitative research often starts with clearly defined hypotheses and measurable outcomes and focuses primarily on generalisability, while qualitative research emphasises transferability and is well suited to capturing the processes of change, including relationships, learning and collaboration. By beginning with a clear plan for how impact will be achieved, researchers can ensure that data collection and analysis are strategically aligned with the goal of generating real-world benefits. This supports researchers in planning how findings can be translated into practical outputs, such as tools, training programs or policy recommendations.Using frameworks like VICTOR (Visible Impact of Research) (Community For Allied Health Professions Research CAHPR, 2024) offer structured ways to document and communicate impact across six domains (Jones et al., 2021). Quantitative data can be mapped onto these domains to show changes in health outcomes, service delivery changes, economic benefits and risks, increased research capacity, organisations and knowledge production. This systematic approach supports transparency, accountability and strategic dissemination.Impact essentially refers to the difference research makes within the community involved. In participatory research, the intention to generate change and foster impact is not only expected but also embedded in the methodology itself. Change and impact can arise at various stages of the research process (Abma et al., 2019). To clarify, impact can be understood through three key elements (Social Care Institute for Excellence SCIE, 2024):To support researchers in planning for and achieving impact, several tools and frameworks are available. The Co-production Impact Framework (Social Care Institute for Excellence SCIE, 2024) offers a structured approach to mapping the pathway, activities and outcomes that contribute to impact. Similarly, the Theory of Change guidance helps researchers plan and track how their work leads to real-world change by clarifying goals, identifying key steps and engaging stakeholders to keep research focused and impactful (Noble, 2019).Researchers can promote sustainable implementation by extending the duration of implementation, applying a wider range of strategies, grounding interventions in theory and integrating effective behaviour change techniques (Fritz et al., 2024). Including implementation metrics in a research project will provide a meta-perspective of the impact, using tools such as EPPIIC (Evaluating public and patient involvement in interventional research) (Pyne et al., 2024) or the EQUIP Tool (Evaluating QUality and ImPlementation) (McAlpine et al., 2025).Traditionally, research findings are often disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and policy briefs. To consider dissemination as a pathway to impact, rather than a final step, researchers also can use infographics, audio-visuals, (social) media and stakeholder reports to translate complex data into accessible insights throughout the research process. To ensure inclusivity, materials should be written in accessible formats, such as at B1 level (European Union, 2025), using clear language and short sentences, supported by visuals or audio. Co-creating materials with the target audience and offering them in multiple languages helps broaden accessibility and reach (Pharos, 2024).To maximise the reach and relevance

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.