Screening for sensory impairment in older adults: Training and practice of occupational therapists in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of occupational therapy education is to train generalists who can refine their knowledge after graduation according to the requirements of the professional environment. However, it is currently unclear to what extent sensory screening should be included in the educational curricula. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the sensory screening education for and practice by occupational therapists working with older adults. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was used to collect data from members of the Quebec Order of Occupational Therapists. Descriptive statistics were used in the analysis. FINDINGS: Data from 102 respondents indicated that training on sensory impairment-related topics was minimal and in stark contrast to the proportion who reported serving clients with a visual (92%), hearing (84%), or combined impairment (53%). IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapy considers numerous aspects of physical, cognitive, and emotional well-being. The question remains as to what extent vision and hearing health should take their place among these priorities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".