Paediatric Occupational Therapy University Programme Curricula in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paediatric curriculum component of entry-level occupational therapy education programmes in the United Kingdom was examined and comparisons were made with the practice literature to determine if students were being taught current best practices. Questionnaires were mailed electronically to the identified paediatric faculty members of the 27 universities with an entry-level occupational therapy education programme in the United Kingdom. Ten completed questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 37%. The survey results indicated that paediatrics constituted less than 5% of the total curriculum content of the respondent university programmes. The theory, assessments and treatment approaches taught in the education programmes were similar to those used in clinical practice with children. Some gaps in what was taught to students were apparent, notably in the key paediatric area of visual perceptual dysfunction. The theory, assessments and intervention methods were not always taught as a cohesive stand-alone unit, so gaps occurred in the education programmes. This could lead to graduates using an eclectic approach or using personal conceptual frameworks based on postgraduate learning and work experience.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".