Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having recently returned from the most successful 21st National Conference of Occupational Therapists in Brisbane, we feel stimulated by the launch of the Accredited Occupational Therapist Program (AccOT) and by the theme of evidence-based practice (EBP), which emerged during the scientific program and in Anne Cusick’s Sylvia Docker lecture. These developments have been in train for several years, as indicated by the long-term planning for the AccOT Program and by the recent issue of the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal featuring EBP (December 2000). The AccOT Program has been developed to assist and encourage occupational therapists to maintain currency of knowledge and skills. It also aims to promote occupational therapy skills to consumers, employers, government agencies and authorities; these groups will now have a means for identifying those practitioners who are continually working to update their professional skills. This program is comprehensive, covering standards of practice, occupational therapy training programs, appropriate mechanisms for handling of any concerns or complaints, and guidelines for mentoring and supervision. The core theme of the AccOT Program is continuing professional development, which links effectively with EBP. The International Symposium on Evidence-Based Occupational Therapy, organised by the Department of Occupational Therapy at the University of Queensland and held prior to the Conference, provided an exciting forum for Australian and international occupational therapists to participate in identifying issues, themes and future directions for EBP. We were fortunate to have leading Australian and New Zealand representatives and eminent international occupational therapy speakers. The links between Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the USA, and the World Federation of Occupational Therapists, which were strengthened at the symposium, will provide a valuable base for future collaboration. A further recommendation from the symposium related to the publication in our Journal of critically appraised papers (CAP) relevant to occupational therapy. This would involve location of suitable papers, preparation of a structured abstract, and a written commentary on the paper by an expert from the relevant field. Publishing a variety of CAP in a journal enables the subscribers to access a wider range of scientific papers relevant to their professional interests. This proposal will be discussed at our next Editorial Board meeting. It is important to understand that EBP is the combination and integration of best available research evidence, clinical experience and patient values (Sackett et al., 1996), with Taylor (2000) stressing that EBP should be seen as ‘just one of the tools of clinical reasoning and reflective practice’ (p. 3). Best evidence can range from expert discussion to systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, with qualitative research now being seen as acceptable and appropriate evidence (Taylor). Evidence-based practice in the health sector is a universal concept, which according to Sackett et al. (1996), will be integral to all practice by the year 2005. The AccOT Program will provide an effective tool for occupational therapists to achieve this goal. The continuing professional development tool of the AccOT Program will provide an effective framework for occupational therapists to develop their practice through access to the latest research, developing skills in understanding and interpreting the research literature, and by accessing systematic reviews and critically appraised papers from journals and the Internet. These themes from the Conference can be interpreted as demonstrating the continuing growth of our profession, and signify the strength of the foundations of our practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".