Patient Focused Care: Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapeutic recreation is often conceptualized as inherently person-centered. However, there have been virtually no examples of what person focused TR practice actually looks like. The present study attempted to fill this gap. The study was carried out in response to the desire of therapeutic recreationists at a major Canadian health care facility to better understand thenpractice. Of particular interest was the initial encounter between patient and therapist, an encounter that traditionally has been called assessment. As a part of this action research project, the co-researcher/practitioners engaged in a reflective process that allowed them gain a deeper understanding of themselves and their practice. This they did by looking beyond therapeutic recreation to another discipline, nursing, where they found Parse's theory of human becoming. The findings of this study demonstrate an approach that fosters the emergence of more authentic relationships between patients and therapists, and enables therapeutic recreation to more nearly fulfil its potential in the practice of patient focused care.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".