The cultural brokerage work of occupational therapists in providing culturally sensitive care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The important place of culture within occupational therapy is widely recognized, and there is increasing emphasis on addressing the diversity of clients. PURPOSE: This study explores how occupational therapists perform cultural brokerage when providing culturally sensitive care to immigrant families. METHOD: A descriptive qualitative methodology was used for this study. A purposive sample of 17 occupational therapists from two Canadian paediatric rehabilitation centres were interviewed. FINDINGS: Participants encountered several cultural and structural constraints in providing culturally sensitive care. To overcome these constraints, clinicians used four strategies: (a) translating between health systems for clients, (b) bridging different meanings of occupational therapy to make it relevant for clients, (c) establishing long-term relationships by building trust and rapport, and (d) working with clients' relational networks to help them navigate the health system. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapists should advocate for both the individual needs of immigrant families and for institutional level resources to better meet the needs of diverse 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 | 0.047 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".