Power and Client-Centred Practice: An Insider Exploration of Occupational Therapists' Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although problems with power sharing are frequently described in discussions about client-centred practice, little research has explored occupational therapists' experiences with this model of service delivery. To critically examine this aspect of occupational therapy, an insider study was conducted. PURPOSE: The objectives of the study were to explore therapists' experiences with client-centred practice and to reveal how power works within this practice and in the health service environment. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with 9 therapists were conducted, and a thematic analysis of these transcripts was completed. A variety of institutional documents were reviewed and analysed. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: the different interpretations of occupational therapy discourse, the power of context, and the continuum of client-therapist interactions. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: It is important to consider the various competing discourses and institutional practices that frame the therapeutic relationship when evaluating methods to improve 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 | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".