Exploring the nexus between health promotion and occupational therapy: Synergies and similarities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The similarities between health promotion and occupational therapy have been recognized. Both are based on perspectives that share a goal of enabling individuals and populations to improve control over their health. Consequently, it is logical that the principles of health promotion complement the practice of occupational therapy. PURPOSE: This paper highlights the affinity between occupational therapy and health promotion, and discusses ways in which health promotion principles can be incorporated into occupational therapy practice. KEY ISSUES: Some Canadian occupational therapists may be unaware of the current discourse in health promotion and, thus, may not be incorporating its principles into practice. Steps are warranted to expand the current knowledge and practice of therapists to include health promotion, with specific attention to providing services for the population. IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating health promotion principles into occupational therapy perspectives will facilitate the implementation of the domains of practice within the occupational therapy profile. This paper highlights how the principles of health promotion can impact practice at the individual and community level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".