Preparing for community development practice: A Delphi study of Canadian occupational therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasingly, community development is recognized as an important process for occupational therapy practice. However, occupational therapists working in community development report feeling unprepared. PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the knowledge, skills, and experiences that occupational therapists need for practice in community development. METHOD: Using the Delphi technique, the researchers developed statements from the Round 1 (n = 8) responses of occupational therapists involved in community development practice or scholarship. Rounds 2 (n = 14) and 3 (n = 12) sought to establish consensus among the occupational therapists on the areas of focus. FINDINGS: Participants rated the importance of 64 statements grouped into 11 domains. After three rounds, researchers eliminated six statements by analyzing the median, interquartile range, and percentage of agreement. Participants reached consensus on 58 statements. IMPLICATIONS: Many of the competencies identified were relevant to all areas of practice, while others were specific to community development, suggesting a need for specialized education and training in this area. The results provide information that can be used to enhance the preparation of occupational therapists for practice in community development.
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 | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".