Profile of paediatric occupational therapy practice in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of the present study was to describe a profile of Australian paediatric occupational therapy practice in terms of theories, assessments and interventions used with the most frequently seen client groups. Methods: An ex post facto survey design was utilised. A purpose‐designed survey was mailed to 600 occupational therapists identified by OT Australia as working in paediatrics. Results: The response rate was 55% (n = 330). Respondents in the sample worked chiefly with children with developmental delays, learning disabilities, neurological impairments, and infants/toddlers. Theoretical models used by paediatric clinicians that were common to the most frequently seen client groups focused on sensory integration/multisensory approaches, occupational performance, and client‐centred practice. Assessment tools most frequently used were the Test of Visual Motor Integration, Sensory Profile, Bruininks‐Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Handwriting Speed Test, and Motor‐Free Visual Perception Test. The most often used treatment methods across the four most frequently seen client groups were parent/caregiver education, sensory integration/stimulation techniques, and managing activities of daily living. Conclusions: Paediatric occupational therapists appeared to draw on a range of theoretical models. With the exception of the Sensory Profile, the assessment and treatment methods most frequently used are not congruent with the most commonly used theoretical models. It is critical that the assessment and treatment methods used are conceptually consistent with the theoretical models that guide practice. Occupational therapists need to examine the evidence and determine whether their clinical practice is grounded in the best contemporary theoretical models, assessments and interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".