Four years after graduation: Occupational therapists' work destinations and perceptions of preparedness for practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study sought to identify the work destinations of graduates and ascertain their perceived preparedness for practice from a regional occupational therapy program, which had been specifically developed to support the health requirements of northern Australians by having an emphasis on rural practice. DESIGN: Self-report questionnaires and semistructured in-depth telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Graduates (n = 15) from the first cohort of occupational therapists from James Cook University, Queensland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The study enabled comparisons to be made between rural and urban based occupational therapists, while the semistructured interviews provided a deeper understanding of participants' experiences regarding their preparation for practice. RESULTS: Demographic differences were noted between occupational therapists working in rural and urban settings. Rural therapists were predominantly younger and had worked in slightly more positions than their urban counterparts. The study also offered some insights into the value that therapists placed on the subjects taught during their undergraduate occupational therapy training, and had highlighted the differences in perceptions between therapists with rural experience and those with urban experience regarding the subjects that best prepared them for practice. Generally, rural therapists reported that all subjects included in the curriculum had equipped them well for practice. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the need to undertake further research to determine the actual nature of rural practice, the personal characteristics of rural graduates and the experiences of students while on rural clinical placements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".