A Survey of Occupational Therapists in Canada about Their Knowledge and Use of the ICF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current impact of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) on the field of occupational therapy within Canada is unknown. PURPOSE: To survey occupational therapists in Canada about their knowledge, use of and suggestions for education about the ICF. METHOD: Mixed methods design included (i) an online survey, with data analyzed using quantitative methods; and (ii) semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of 10 therapists, using content analysis. RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 587 occupational therapists (17.6% return). Four hundred and ten respondents (70.0%) indicated some ICF knowledge, and 121 of those individuals (29.5%) reported using it in practice. Interview participants suggested resources, perceived meaning and investment factors impact ICF knowledge. Suggested uses include frameworks and interprofessional collaboration, while ideas for education involve meaningful and accessible formats. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The ICF may be useful to occupational therapists in different settings if it fulfills a meaningful purpose and fits with practice models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".