Theory of Research Utilization Enhancement: A Model for Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need for occupational therapists to provide research-based practice, yet there is little understanding of the specific strategies and processes individual practitioners use to integrate research evidence into their clinical practice. METHOD: Using grounded theory method, the self-reported research utilization strategies of a sample of 11 elite occupational therapists practicing in adult stroke rehabilitation were examined. The triangulation of the interview data, the organizational policies of their workplaces, and existing theoretical concepts and processes of research utilization resulted in the development of a theory and a practice model to guide research utilization in occupational therapy. RESULTS: The Theory of Research Utilization Enhancement for Occupational Therapists, and the Model of Research Utilization in Occupational Therapy are presented, and their implications for practice, policy, education and future research are discussed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Built upon the Occupational Performance Process Model, the theory and model are proposed as guides to enhance therapists' ability to maintain a client-centred approach while informing clinical practices with research evidence. The application of structured reflection, case application and peer consultation facilitate the integration of research evidence into clinical practices.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".