Client Perspectives on Occupational Therapy Practice: Are We Truly Client-Centred?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the guidelines for the practice of occupational therapy are named and framed as client-centred. Two in-depth interviews were conducted with clients of mental health services about their experiences with a hospital-based occupational therapy service. These occupational therapy clients described their experiences as prescriptive, and as less than client-centred. With the publication of Enabling occupation: A Canadian occupational therapy perspective (Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists [CAOT], 1997) and an increasingly refined focus on being client-centred, these interviews highlight the challenges of a client-centred practice within the current health care environment. These occupational therapy clients raise issues of importance for occupational therapy. The participants stated that the prescription of 'activity', a lack of choice, and a focus upon the illness as opposed to the individual, served to diminish any collaborative partnership with the client and eliminate the client from any decision-making process. This distancing from the client, in their opinion, served to greatly diminish any therapeutic value of occupation. The participants recommended a greater focus upon occupational choice, consideration of the individual within the client, providing accepting, supportive environments, and using professional expertise on occupation to guide the client towards participation in meaningful occupation. These recommendations are strikingly similar to the most recent guidelines for the client-centred practice of occupational therapy in Canada. A discussion of the implications of these findings for the client-centred practice of occupational therapy is offered.
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 | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".