A Framework of Strategies for Client-Centred Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementing strategies to overcome barriers to client-centred practice is a challenge encountered by many occupational therapists in their daily practice. The Client-centred Strategies Framework is proposed as a tool to assist occupational therapists to consider barriers and implement strategies from a variety of perspectives. DESCRIPTION: The framework consists of five categories: personal reflection, client-centred processes, practice settings, community organizing, and coalition advocacy and political action. Within each category are a number of actions that can be taken to facilitate client-centred practice. This paper describes the framework with elaboration of each of the five categories. A case example is used to illustrate how a therapist can use the framework to address client-centred practice issues. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This framework will assist therapists and students to problem-solve ways to enhance the use of client-centred processes within their own practice environments.
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 | 0.038 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".