Research Utilization and Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Therapy: A Scoping Study
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
Many articles have been written on the barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence in practice in nursing and medicine, but to date no extensive review has been published of the literature on evidence-based practice (EBP) supports in occupational therapy. This article presents the results of a scoping review that examined factors that support the integration of research into practice. A review of 69 articles revealed four themes: (1) attitudes toward, perceptions of, confidence in, and use of research and EBP; (2) factors that support the use of research in practice; (3) effects of interventions targeting changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviors, and evidence-based practices; and (4) identification of the processes involved in the acquisition of EBP skills and their application in clinical practice. A process that integrates client-centered practice, structured reflection, case application, and peer consultations within a scholarship of practice model facilitates occupational therapists' evaluation and integration of research evidence.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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