A Qualitative Study of Rehabilitation Professionals' Optimal Social Participation and Factors Perceived as Influencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Purpose: Optimal social participation, which is the ultimate goal targeted by rehabilitation professionals for their clients, can be defined as perfect congruence between an individual's expectations and reality.Work-family dynamic requires balance between the different spheres of a worker's life.The purpose is to explore the perception of rehabilitation professionals regarding their optimal social participation based on work-family conciliation, and the factors they identify as influencing this participation.Method: Qualitative study with a phenomenological orientation among 13 rehabilitation professionals using an interview guide consisting of open questions.The data was audio-recorded and transcribed in full (verbatim) followed by content analysis.Analysis was carried out systematically to achieve a better understanding of the facts.A proportion of the analysis (approximately 10%) was coded by another team member for validation.Results: Participants were mostly women (12/13) aged 31 to 44 years having one to three children aged from 7 months to 12 years old.Optimality of participation is perceived as the ability (or not) to carry out important activities while fulfilling one's various responsibilities.Of the five environmental factors perceived to have an influence (financial aspects, spousal support, time, flexible work schedule, and family organization), family organization appears to be a determinant of possibility and thus greatly influences individual expectations.Conclusion: Work-life balance is a complex phenomenon that should be studied holistically rather than in a segmented mode.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".