Focus on participation for children and youth with disabilities: Supporting therapy practice through a guided knowledge translation process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Participation in community leisure occupations of children with disabilities is important, yet poorly integrated into practice. This knowledge translation strategy tested an intervention to increase clinicians' awareness and to bring about change in practice toward a focus on participation. Method During this qualitative study, 14 clinicians participated in six learning sessions facilitated by a knowledge broker. Three months post-intervention, clinicians were individually interviewed, by drawing on the Professional Evaluation and Reflection on Change Tool, to evaluate potential change in practice. Two researchers independently performed thematic data analysis. Results Impact on practice emerged in both the personal and professional levels (for example, empowerment, validation of clinical wisdom, change in thinking and behavior). Clinicians suggested strategies for integrating participation in their day-to-day practice, illustrating a substantial intention for change, while describing barriers and facilitators for implementation (for example, organizational mandate). Two additional themes described the overall experience of the intervention: motivation to learn (for example, desire to link research to practice) and elements of the learning environment (for example, meeting informational needs). Conclusion This strategy was effective in redirecting clinicians' focus toward the notion of participation and establishing readiness for change. This shift can potentially facilitate new programs in occupational therapy that are participation-based and community-focused.
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 | 0.032 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".