Ethical tensions in occupational therapy practice: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Ethical tensions are an unavoidable part of occupational therapy practice. Given the significance of this, and the divergent nature of the literature, a need was identified for a systematic examination of the published literature on this topic. The purpose of this scoping review therefore was to identify, summarize, and describe existing literature on ethical tensions in occupational therapy practice. Method A comprehensive scoping review was conducted. In the initial search, 459 articles, spanning a 13-year time frame, were retrieved from six databases; 32 articles met the criteria for full review. Results Seven themes were identified that highlighted ethical tensions related to: (a) resource and systemic issues; (b) upholding ethical principles and values; (c) client safety; (d) working with vulnerable clients; (e) interpersonal conflicts; (f) upholding professional standards and (g) practice management. Conclusion This scoping review highlights a breadth of ethical tensions that have implications for practice, education, policy and research. It represents an important first step in mapping knowledge about ethical tensions in occupational therapy practice, and lays a foundation for future research directions.
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 | 0.031 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".