Community occupational therapists’ clinical reasoning: Identifying tacit knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapy interventions in the community, a fast expanding practice setting, are central to an important social priority, the ability to live at home. These interventions generally involve only a small number of home visits, which aim at maximising the safety and autonomy of community-dwelling clients. Knowing how community occupational therapists determine their interventions, i.e. their clinical reasoning, can improve intervention efficacy. However, occupational therapists are often uninformed about and neglect the importance of clinical reasoning, which could underoptimise their interventions. AIM: To synthesise current knowledge about community occupational therapists' clinical reasoning. METHOD: A scoping study of the literature on community occupational therapists' clinical reasoning was undertaken. RESULTS: Fifteen textbooks and 25 articles, including six focussing on community occupational therapists' clinical reasoning, were reviewed. Community occupational therapists' clinical reasoning is influenced by internal and external factors. Internal factors include past experiences, expertise and perceived complexity of a problem. One of the external factors, practice context (e.g. organisational or cultural imperatives, physical location of intervention), particularly shapes community occupational therapists' clinical reasoning, which is interactive, complex and multidimensional. However, the exact influence of many factors (personal context, organisational and legal aspects of health care, lack of resources and increased number of referrals) remains unclear. CONCLUSION: Further studies are needed to understand better the influence of internal and external factors. The extent to which these factors mould the way community occupational therapists think and act could have a direct influence on the services they provide to their clients.
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 | 0.036 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".