International fieldwork placements and occupational therapy: Lived experiences of the major stakeholders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Occupational therapy students obtain a great deal of their professional preparation and experience through fieldwork placements. Although many occupational therapy students have taken part in international fieldwork placements, there is little research on this topic. As fieldwork placements are an integral part of the education of occupational therapy students, literature on the subject of international fieldwork placements is necessary. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to examine the personal and professional experiences of occupational therapy students, supervisors, and on-site staff who have taken part in an international fieldwork placement. METHODS: Qualitative interviews for this phenomenological study were administered with 14 participants who had taken part in an international fieldwork placement in Trinidad and Tobago. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Three themes emerged: collaborative learning, cultural negotiations and thinking on my own. DISCUSSION: Considering fieldwork is a critical component in the occupational therapy curriculum, it is reassuring to uncover that international placements can be of benefit to all stakeholders while achieving its primary goal of preparing students to become competent therapists. All participants developed a greater cultural awareness and appreciation, which is necessary as occupational therapists are increasingly working in diverse settings with diverse client groups. This information can also be used to enhance international fieldwork education as students continue to travel abroad to complete their mandatory fieldwork hours.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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 it