Are health promotion and prevention interventions integrated into occupational therapy practice with older adults having disabilities? Insights from six community health settings in <scp>Q</scp>uébec, <scp>C</scp>anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Increasingly, health-care systems should promote seniors' health and prevent disability. As they enable engagement in meaningful activities within the individuals' living environment, community occupational therapists have great potential to contribute to health promotion and prevention. Despite this potential, little is known about current health promotion and prevention activities in occupational therapy community practice. This study thus aimed to: (1) identify health promotion and prevention interventions used with seniors having disabilities, and (2) explore barriers to integrating such interventions into practice. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of a qualitative study was carried out using thematic saliency analysis. Eleven community occupational therapists working with seniors having disabilities were recruited in six community health settings in Québec, Canada. Observations of 12 home visits, followed by 12 semi-structured interviews, were conducted with occupational therapists. RESULTS: Most interventions involved optimising independence in personal care and mobility. Explicit health promotion interventions were limited and included enabling healthy lifestyles by increasing health literacy and empowerment. Meaningful activities (leisure, community participation) were not targeted. Barriers to integrating health promotion into practice were clients' complex health conditions and limited openness to change combined with organisational and professional obstacles, such as a misunderstanding of occupational therapists' role in health promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion and prevention interventions are not intentionally integrated into community occupational therapy practice with seniors having disabilities. As a result, seniors' needs to engage in meaningful activities might remain unmet. Overcoming barriers to integrating health promotion and prevention in practice could help improve population health and wellbeing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".