Is There a Role for Occupational Therapy within a Specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Eating Disorder Service?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Northern Ireland, only two occupational therapists work within the specialist field of child and adolescent mental health (CAMH). This is despite recommendations made by the Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability (Northern Ireland) that occupational therapy should be a core element of CAMH provision. The College of Occupational Therapists has urged practitioners to challenge inequalities in health and social care provision and to use occupational language to reinforce the relationship between occupation, recovery and wellbeing. This opinion piece highlights occupational therapy core skills and occupational therapy frames of reference or modalities, underlining the application of both to eating disorders. The treatment models discussed are the Model of Human Occupation, the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and sensory integration. Evidence reinforces that the models discussed are applicable, appropriate and valuable when treating children and adolescents with an eating disorder. It is argued that the valuable and unique role of occupational therapy must be recognised by health and social care commissioners and CAMH providers and be vocalised by occupational therapists. CAMH teams are advised to embrace the unique skills that occupational therapists have to offer children and adolescents with eating disorders in order to ensure that clients receive truly multidisciplinary and client-centred evidence-based services.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".