Enhancing Research Use through Online Action Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many health professionals, including occupational therapists, have difficulty utilizing research findings in daily practice. PURPOSE: To determine if an online action research project could enhance research use among occupational therapists working in similar practice areas. METHODS: Four groups of 12-14 occupational therapists met online for approximately one year. They discussed barriers and facilitators to research utilization, defined practice questions, and attempted to search for, synthesize and apply relevant research findings. Online communications and post-group interviews were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Only half of the participants who began the project were still online with the research project at completion. These participants believed that their involvement in the group led to increased personal awareness, motivation and confidence regarding the use of research evidence in practice and knowledge to be used in practice. Time to review, critique and synthesize research evidence continued to be a major barrier to enhanced research utilization. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Online meetings designed to enhance research use among occupational therapists appear to hold some promise, but refinements are needed to ensure their ultimate success.
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 | 0.160 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".