A Review of Evidence on the Conceptual Elements Informing Client-Centred Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Client-centred practice is a central concept in occupational therapy in Canada. Since 1980, Canadian occupational therapy publications have discussed the elements of a client-centred practice approach. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to enhance the understanding of key elements of a client-centred approach and to highlight the implications for practice that arise from this discussion. METHOD: Literature about client-centred practice in health care from 1990 - 2005 was reviewed regarding thoughts and ideas about client-centred practice. The content was analyzed for thematic focus about client-centred practice conceptual ideas and their influence on practice. RESULTS: Thematic conceptual elements emerging from the review include an overarching theme of power, with important underpinning themes of listening and communicating, partnership, choice, and hope. Selected definitions of client-centred practice and the link to best practice provide the context for the presentation of the concepts and recommendations for the implementation of client-centred practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The paper concludes with a discussion of practice implications through the presentation of questions for therapists to consider as a quick reference tool and suggestions for further research and dialogue concerning 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 | 0.020 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".