A review of paediatric occupational therapy university curricula in South Africa: Part two
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the second article of a study of the paediatric content of undergraduate and entry-level postgraduate occupational therapy university programmes in South Africa. Current best practices in paediatric occupational therapy were examined through a literature review, which is presented in part one. This second article reports the results of the survey that examined the paediatric theoretical models, assessment tools and interventions taught by the eight universities in South Africa that offer occupational therapy programmes. Six faculties responded to the electronic survey, yielding a response rate of 75%. On average, paediatrics constituted 21.5% of the total South African occupational therapy curricula. The most commonly taught theoretical models were Erikson's Eight Stages of Psychosocial Development, neurodevelopmental therapy and the Model of Human Occupation. There was a deficit in curricular programming with regard to perceptual motor theory. The Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test and the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills (non-motor) were among the most widely taught assessments. All six university programmes incorporated health promotion and disease prevention into their syllabuses. Therefore, occupational therapy students in South Africa receive a broad and varied education with regard to paediatrics.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".