Understanding ‘Independence’: Perspectives of occupational therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand how the term independence is used in rehabilitation. In particular, we asked occupational therapists in Canada and Japan to interpret the term independence in terms of people with disabilities. In rehabilitation, independence has long been a key concept. A review of the literature shows that the term's meaning has shifted throughout the past century. However, despite its significance, the word's meaning has never been deeply analysed, and it is left to the interpretation of the individual practitioner; consequently, there is a conceptual confusion surrounding the term. Furthermore, no studies have been conducted from an inter-cultural viewpoint that included non-Western societies. METHOD: A qualitative interpretive study was conducted, based on semi-structured interviews with 18 occupational therapists. Nine Canadian and nine Japanese therapists were interviewed in depth and their perspectives analysed for themes and categories corresponding to their working definition of independence. RESULTS: Therapists' interpretation of the term independence consisted of three perspectives: "Independence as competence,""Independence as autonomy," and "Independence as psychological qualities". These perspectives were typically combined into two patterns of dealing with independence in practice. Differences between Canadian and Japanese perspectives were explored. CONCLUSIONS: The study's findings confirm some ideas about independence that have been pointed out in the professional literature, but they also add several important ideas - the idea of psychological characteristics as key to independence, and the notion of a cultural overlay on the definition and application of the concept independence. This study's findings should contribute to the ongoing discussion in the professional literature about the virtues and limitations of pursuing independence as the ultimate goal in rehabilitation.
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 | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".