Empowering occupational therapists to become evidence-based work rehabilitation practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Occupational therapists (OTs) engage in continuing education to integrate best available knowledge and skills into their practice. However, many barriers influence the degree to which they are currently able to integrate research evidence into their clinical decision making process. The specific objectives were to explore the clinical decision-making processes they used, and to describe the empowerment process they developed to become evidence-based practitioners. PARTICIPANTS: Eight OTs, who had attended a four-day workshop on evidence-based work rehabilitation, were recruited to participate to a reflective practice group. METHODS: A collaborative research methodology was used. The group was convened for 12 meetings and held during a 15-month period. The data collected was analyzed using the grounded theory method. RESULTS: The results revealed the different decision-making modes used by OTs: defensive, repressed, cautious, autonomous intuitive and autonomous thoughtful. These modes influenced utilization of evidence and determined the stances taken toward practice change. Reflective learning facilitated their utilization of an evidence-based practice model through a three-level empowerment process: deliberateness, client-centeredness and system mindedness. CONCLUSIONS: During the course of this study, participants learned to become evidence-based practitioners. This process had an impact on how they viewed their clients, their practice and the work rehabilitation system.
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 | 0.029 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".