“Support for Everyone”: Experiences of Occupational Therapists Delivering a New Model of School-Based Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists working in school health have recognized the need to move away from a one-to-one direct service delivery model towards a more collaborative, classroom-based approach. Partnering for Change (P4C) is an innovative service delivery model that may enhance school-based collaborative care. PURPOSE: To capture the experiences of occupational therapists implementing P4C and to elicit their perspectives about how this model differs from the direct service approach. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with seven therapists who had delivered P4C in 10 Ontario schools. Thematic analysis was utilized with themes verified through member checking. FINDINGS: Five themes (a year of growth, becoming a community, the key ingredients of P4C, a balancing act, and providing services that make an impact) reflected therapists'personal and professional growth, aspects of the model they believed were key, challenges they encountered, and the impact they felt they had made. IMPLICATIONS: Partnering for Change has the potential to transform school-based occupational therapy and overcome existing barriers to collaboration. This model also may better address the needs of children with motor coordination difficulties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".