Advocacy in Occupational Therapy: Exploring Clinicians' Reasons and Experiences of Advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapy literature encourages therapists to advocate, yet any member of the team could advocate with/for people with disabilities. There is a need to determine why occupational therapists provide these services and how they learn to advocate. PURPOSE: The objective of this article is to understand the meaning of advocacy for occupational therapists by exploring their reasons for advocating. METHODS: Interpretive phenomenology and the social model of disability were used to interview 13 occupational therapists about their advocacy experiences. Data analysis was completed using a Gadamerian-based approach. FINDINGS: Occupational therapists advocate for a number of reasons; some relate to themselves, some relate to clients, and others relate to both. Learning about advocacy may be understood as taking place on a continuum of time. IMPLICATIONS: The occupational therapist's unique reason for advocating is to facilitate the client's occupational performance. A new definition of advocacy is presented based on study findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".