Internalizing Client-Centredness in Occupational Therapy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pre-licensure interprofessional education prepares students for collaborative client-centred practice. However, most interprofessional educational efforts are aimed at developing the collaborative component of practice. The purpose of this article is to share the findings of a study that explored occupational therapy students’ client-centred development, in order to inform other pre-licensure educators about integrating client-centredness into uni- and interprofessional education contexts.Methods and Findings: Twenty-nine participants were recruited from each of three stages assumed to be representative of occupational therapy client-centred development in each of the two years of the educational program and during the first year of practice. Semi-structured focus groups were used to capture the participants’ experiences. The core emergent theme, internalizing client-centredness, included three main processes: identifying occupational therapy as a client-centred profession, engaging in the push and pull of client-centredness, and defining self as a client-centred practitioner.Conclusions: Educators of pre-licensure health care students should deliberately focus on client-centredness in their uni- and interprofessional education curricula; the authors offer examples of curricular opportunities focused on internalizing client-centredness. Enabling health care students to internalize client-centredness may be an important aspect of developing practitioners who are prepared to enact interprofessional collaboration for client-centred practice.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".