Research Utilization and Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Therapy: A Scoping Study
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.
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 | 0.185 | 0.382 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".