Occupational therapists’ pain knowledge: a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study surveyed Canadian occupational therapists to identify whether their pain knowledge is current or if the gaps identified in past studies have remained the same. The findings will provide information to guide the development of targeted pain knowledge translation strategies for occupational therapists. METHOD: A self-report survey, including demographic questions and part of the City of Boston's Rehabilitation Professionals' Knowledge and Attitude Survey (COBS), was disseminated electronically to all members of the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. RESULTS: A total of 354 therapists, most came from Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia and working in the community, acute care and private practice, participated. Over 50% had 10 years or less of experience. Deficit knowledge areas were identified in pediatric pain, chronic versus acute pain, pain assessment and medications. These findings are largely consistent with deficits identified in pre-2000 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Pain knowledge gaps persist among Canadian occupational therapists and this can, and should, be addressed within the occupational therapist (OT) curriculum and in professional development initiatives. It is concerning that this study identified similar knowledge gaps as those identified in previous studies of OT students and clinicians. Pain is a growing and complex issue with negative impact on occupational performance across the lifespan. Knowledge dissemination of occupational therapy pain assessment and management approaches should be a priority for the profession. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Pain is a prevalent condition in all age groups of occupational therapists' clients. There appear to be gaps in occupational therapists' evidence-based knowledge of aspects of pain. Occupational therapy training programs and occupational therapy associations should provide education with a particular focus on identified pain knowledge gaps.
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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".