UNASSIGNED: Occupational therapists are encouraged to use research evidence to guide therapeutic interventions that holistically address the consequences of dementia. Recent efforts to use research evidence in practice have emphasized the challenges of doing so in ways aligned to person-centred and professional principles. Using research evidence is a complex process influenced by multiple contextual factors and layers. The influence of context in occupational therapy for dementia is currently unclear.
UNASSIGNED: To explore the contextual complexities of using research evidence in practice with people with dementia, and to develop knowledge to improve the approach to using evidence in person-centred, occupation-focused practice.
UNASSIGNED: A case study methodology was used, in which the contextual conditions of practice were clarified through the facilitation of critical and creative reflection using the following methods - Think Aloud, practice observation, creative expression and reflective dialogue.
UNASSIGNED: Cultural beliefs that affected evidence use included technically-orientated understandings of evidence-based practice. These were underpinned by apprehensions about losing professional identity and taking risks when processes derived from research evidence were adjusted to incorporate a persons\' occupations. These cultural factors were perpetuated at the organizational layers of context, where systemic priorities and other team members\' needs disproportionately influenced occupational therapists\' decisions.
UNASSIGNED: Occupational therapists\' potential to make reflexive and responsive decisions by adjusting evidence-based processes can be affected by their perceived freedom to address organizational tensions. Raising consciousness of the influence of the organizational context on decision-making about evidence use could adjust occupational therapists\' perceptions of their freedom and ability to be person-centred. Intentionality in reflective processes in practice are required to foster reflexivity.

The aims of the present study were to determine how well physiotherapists implemented person-centred practice principles and behaviour change techniques after a workshop, and to evaluate whether self-audit of performance differed from audits of an experienced training facilitator.
Eight physiotherapists each completed a 2-day workshop followed by two telephone consultations with four patients with knee osteoarthritis. The training facilitator audited audio-recordings of all consultations, and therapists self-audited 50% of consultations using a tool comprising: (a) 10 person-centred practice principles rated on a numerical rating scale of 0 (need to work on this) to 10 (doing really well); and (b) seven behaviour change techniques rated with an ordinal scale (using this technique effectively; need to improve skill level; or need to learn how to apply this technique).
Physiotherapists showed \"moderate\" fidelity to person-centred principles, with mean scores between 5 and 7 out of 10. For behaviour change techniques, the training facilitator believed that physiotherapists were using three of seven techniques \"effectively\" during most consultations and \"needed to improve skill levels\" with most other techniques. Physiotherapists scored themselves significantly lower than the training facilitator for two of 10 person-centred principles, and tended to rate their skills using behaviour change techniques less favourably.
Physiotherapists performed moderately well when implementing person-centred practice principles and behaviour change techniques immediately after training, but had room for improvement, particularly for skills relating to providing management options and changing thinking habits. Physiotherapists\' self-ratings of performance generally did not differ from expert ratings; however, they underestimated their ability to implement some principles and techniques.