The role of occupational therapists in the contexts of a natural disaster: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify and inform the experience and roles of occupational therapists (OTs) in the contexts of a natural disaster. METHOD: This scoping review was conducted via five steps: (1) identify the research question, (2) identify relevant academic articles published between 2000 and 2014 in English, (3) select articles based on the inclusion criteria, (4) chart the data and (5) collate, summarise, and report the results of the selected articles. The results were presented using descriptive numerical and thematic analyses. RESULTS: OTs can prepare a plan for evacuation of people with disabilities and their accommodation before a disaster occurs. Immediately after a disaster, they can provide emergency services for injuries and provide education and training in coping skills for psychological distress via a community-based rehabilitation approach. Consistent services for survivors' mental health and for building the OTs' capacity as part of disaster management are focussed on in the recovery phase. CONCLUSION: The potential roles of OTs across the spectrum of a natural disaster were identified via this scoping review. This review will help OTs to become involved in a disaster management system for vulnerable groups across the three phases of preparedness to, respond to and recovery from a disaster. Implication for Rehabilitation Occupational therapists can be involved in disaster management to prepare for, respond to and recover from a natural disaster. Consistent services for psychological distress are needed for people affected by a disaster to return to normalcy. Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) is an important approach to help a wider group of people respond to a natural disaster in a timely manner.
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 | 0.022 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".