Predictors of Research Utilization among Pediatric Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based practice and research utilization activities by clinicians enable clients to receive the best, most current health care available. This study investigated the factors predicting pediatric occupational therapists' attitudes toward evidence-based practice and research utilization in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. Questionnaires were received from 696 participants (response rate = 56.58%) who completed the Edmonton Research Orientation Survey (EROS), the Research Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Research Survey (KAP Survey), and the Barriers to Research Utilization Scale (BARRIERS). The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated the strongest predictor of research utilization was “level of academic occupational therapy qualification,” which was found to be predictive of all of the EROS subscales. The second EROS subscale, “research involvement,” had the largest number of predictive factors. To increase research utilization among pediatric occupational therapists, it is important to be mindful of which aspects of research require improvement so that strategies with the greatest impact and influence can be implemented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".