MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025146844 · doi:10.1177/000841740106800203

Implementing Client-Centred Practice: Why is it so Difficult to Do?

2001· article· en· W2025146844 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyPsychologyService (business)NursingWork (physics)Qualitative researchMedicineBusinessSociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the challenges of implementing client-centred occupational therapy practice. While many occupational therapists believe in the principles of client-centred practice and espouse them, it seems much more difficult to implement these into everyday practice. Findings from three qualitative studies with three different populations (i.e., family-centred care for children and their families, community-based home care, facility-based care for older adults) are used to illustrate the challenges which are divided into three broad categories: challenges at the level of the system, at the level of the therapist and at the level of the client. Suggestions for change at each level are addressed. Organizations, therapists and clients must work together to facilitate these changes and ensure that each occupational therapy client receives respectful, supportive, coordinated, flexible and individualized service.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.335
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it