The Development of Client-Centredness in Student Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: While the occupational therapy profession emphasizes the importance of a client-centred approach, the student perspective on development of client-centredness has been absent in the research literature. The purpose of this grounded theory study was to gain an understanding of occupational therapy students' perceptions of the curricular and practice experiences that contributed to their client-centred development. Method: Study participants were recruited from three cohorts (n = 29) of an entry-level Canadian occupational therapy programme: students from two separate years of an occupational therapy programme, and graduates from the programme who were 1 year into practice. Researchers conducted six focus groups using a semi-structured interview guide; focus group transcripts were reviewed to develop a coding scheme. Emergent categories were collapsed to develop overarching themes. Findings: Six developmental themes were constructed: Internalizing client-centredness; Relationship building; Who is the client?; Systems influences; Academic/practice discrepancy; and Power and control. Each theme was of greater or lesser emphasis at different points, and participants revisited and expanded upon themes throughout their academic programme. Conclusion: Academic and placement educators can use the findings of the study to understand how student occupational therapists develop client-centredness. Educators can use this understanding to implement strategies to intentionally foster client-centred development in students at opportune times.
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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".