Implementing Client-Centred Practice: Why is it so Difficult to Do?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.197 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".