Enacting Occupation-Based Practice: Exploring the Disjuncture between the Daily Lives of Mothers with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Institutional Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Occupation-based approaches are a hallmark of excellence in occupational therapy practice. This article focuses on the disjuncture between how women with rheumatoid arthritis go about their daily lives, that is to say their occupations, and what is addressed during routine visits at a specialized rheumatology outpatient clinic. Method: Institutional ethnography was employed as a method of inquiry to identify the occupations and related issues that were or were not accounted for in health records and addressed within institutional processes. Interviews and participant observations were conducted with seven women with rheumatoid arthritis who were mothers. Hospital records were analysed as texts mediating between the women's daily lives and the rheumatology outpatient clinic. Findings: The analysis revealed that despite the diversity in the ways that the women managed their daily lives, the things that they did were viewed, understood, and addressed only within the boundaries of the standardizing relations that ruled practice in this clinical setting. Institutional processes grounded in biomedical concepts such as functional status or disease activity, as well as clinical assessments that depict these concepts, both shape and limit opportunities for occupational therapists to advance and enact occupation-based practice. Conclusion: In this setting, the complexity of the participants' daily lives and the occupations they engage in remain unaddressed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".