As the delivery of occupational therapy (OT) services via telehealth has dramatically expanded after the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (AOTA, 2022), the effective utilization of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) along with psychosocial skill proficiency is at the forefront of healthcare within a mounting mental health crisis (WHO, 2022). Despite the essential application of ICTs, occupational therapy practitioners (OTPs) apparently lack knowledge, skills and confidence utilizing telehealth effectively (Aboujaoudé et al., 2021; Campbell et al., 2019; Chike-Harris et al., 2021; Corey, 2019; Hermes et al., 2021; Hoel et al., 2020; Larsson-Lund & Nyman, 2019; McClellan et al., 2020; Miranda-Duro et al., 2021). Moreover, research suggests that OTPs further lack confidence incorporating psychosocial abilities and personal attributes, such as therapeutic use of self (Anderson & Halbakken, 2020; Birken et al., 2017; Taylor, 2020). These obstacles jeopardize the distinct value of OT in mental health, as well as the overall viability of the profession. The Technology Training Program (TTP) is a multi-module, curriculum-based ICT skills training intervention that promotes professional advancement in these areas of clinical practice. OTP proficiency in technology and psychosocial skills is a crucial investment that promotes overall competence and self-efficacy to successfully meet global challenges and healthcare demands within a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Little research has identified the proactive psychosocial attributes and tactics that deaf individuals can use to maximise their potential with hearing peers. A comprehensive and systematic framework of psychosocial skills has also been absent in deafness-related research. / This study featured data gleaned from 49 participants from Australia, England, and the USA who were mostly highly educated, and vocationally and socially successful. These participants formed three groups: Oral Deaf (n=22), Hearing (n=19), and Culturally Deaf (n=8). All participants were over the age of 25 and self-regarded as maximising their potential in mainstream society. All hearing participants had had a close relationship with a deaf individual for more than one year and reported not having a disability. All deaf participants nominated whether or not they were culturally Deaf (CD) and reported not having an additional disability to deafness. / Most deaf participants reported pre-lingual deafness (n=18). All but one deaf participant reported greater than severe-to-moderate bilateral deafness. Eighteen (60%) deaf participants wore hearing aids, ten had a cochlear implant, and two had no assistive sensory device. Twenty-four (80%) deaf participants relied on speech-reading and all but one always used their voice to communicate. Nineteen (63%) deaf participants were educated solely in a mainstream school but only three (10%) were educated solely in a School for the Deaf. The majority (64%) of Oral Deaf (OD) participants had not learned Sign Language (SL) and only three continued or were fluent with SL. All CD participants used SL. Data trends also suggested that two CD participants were ‘purely’ CD, whereas the six other CD participants likely were ‘bi-cultural’. / This exploratory research used a framework of psychosocial themes used in a study with vocationally successful participants with a Learning Disability by Reiff, Ginsberg and Gerber (1995). These themes were grouped into Internal Decisions (Desire, Goal Orientation, and Reframing) and External Manifestations (Persistence, Goodness of Fit, Learned Creativity, and Social Ecologies). Control was the eighth theme that embraced all other seven themes. Reiff et al.’s framework was modified for the current study’s purposes so that the combined effect of the three thematic categories of Control, Internal Decisions, and External Manifestations equals Potential Maximisation. Potential Maximisation was therefore defined as the measure of a participant’s psychosocial attributes and tactics used in social and vocational contexts. / Screening surveys were used to glean demographic data and to determine the participants’ eligibility. Eligible deaf and hearing participants were then administered follow-up surveys. These follow-up surveys included identical items that were scored for the purposes of between-group statistical analyses. The follow-up survey for deaf participants featured additional deafness-specific items that were not in the follow-up survey for hearing participants. The follow-up survey items were allocated to themes in Reiff et al.’s (1995) framework. / Mixed-methods were administered on the data. Between- and within-group analyses were also conducted. Three between-group comparisons featured statistical analyses on each of the four variables of Control, Internal Decisions, External Manifestations, and Potential Maximisation. The results of the ANOVAs and t-tests (2-tailed) showed no significant differences in the mean scores for each of four variables. These trends indicated that 1) the deaf and hearing participants used similar or identical psychosocial attributes and tactics to maximise their potential, and that 2) hearing status and 3) deaf identity were not factors influencing the maximisation of psychosocial potential. / Three within-group analyses were then conducted. These included case studies, composite pictures, and reporting qualitative data trends. The case studies showed that the highest scoring participant provided comparatively numerous, richer, and detailed psychosocial attributes and tactics than the lowest scoring participant. The composite pictures further showed remarkable similarities, which, again, highlighted the participants’ use of similar psychosocial attributes and tactics. Qualitative data trends particularly illustrated that deaf participants also used additional psychosocial attributes and tactics for circumventing deafness-related challenges.