Survey of Occupational Therapy Practice in Hong Kong in 2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to meet the future challenges of the new healthcare-services system in Hong Kong, there is a rising need to understand the scope of occupational therapy (OT) practice within the local context. Therefore, a cross-sectional survey of 518 occupational therapists (OTs) in Hong Kong was conducted in 2004. To describe the profile and scope of OT practice in Hong Kong. A standardised questionnaire was sent to all OTs registered under the Occupational Therapists Board, as defined by the Special Supplement No.4 to Gazette No. 42/2003, published by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The OTs were requested to submit the completed questionnaires to the research team. Descriptive data were then collected for analysis. Of the 1,018 questionnaires that were sent out, 518 OTs responded (50.9%). Results indicated that 412 (81.6%) OTs had more than 5 years of clinical experience, 246 (47.5%) OTs had a Master's degree, and 178 (34.4%) reported that stroke was the most common type of treated condition. Other areas of OT practice were also described. This survey provided the most recent and clear profile and scope of OT practice in Hong Kong. Four areas of OT practice which require extra attention were identified, and four strategic plans to ensure a sustainable development of OT in future are proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".