Therapists' Perceptions of how Teamwork Influences Client-Centred Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study adds to the client-centred literature by focusing on occupational therapists' experience of working on teams that support clients with a severe and persistent mental illness from a client-centred perspective. The paper reports on the second category of data relating to a previously published paper, which replicated the work of Sumsion (2004). Interviews were conducted with 12 therapists to capture their experience and interpretation of this approach to practice. The multiphased analysis included template analysis and open coding. It resulted in the creation of the category of meaningful goals, which addressed the work done to ensure that the goals towards which everyone was working were meaningful for the client. The facilitators related to these goals included team cohesion, the structure of the system and family collaboration and support. The challenges were differing perspectives and paradigms, competitive frameworks and time. This study identified the unique contribution that families provided to a client-centred approach. Overall, the study makes a significant contribution to the literature and to therapists' understanding of the factors that influence the therapist's ability to facilitate client-centred practice.
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 | 0.022 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".