Psychotherapy: A profile of current occupational therapy practice in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychotherapy can be an important part of psychosocial occupational therapy practice; however, it requires specialized training to achieve and maintain competence. Regulation varies by province, and in Ontario, occupational therapists were recently authorized to perform psychotherapy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the psychotherapy practice, training, and support needs of Ontario occupational therapists. METHOD: An online survey was sent to occupational therapists who had clients with mental health or chronic pain issues, asking about their expertise and support needs in relation to nine psychotherapy approaches. FINDINGS: Of the 331 therapists who responded, there were variations in the nature and frequency of psychotherapy practice. Experienced therapists in outpatient settings were more likely to practice psychotherapy, and cognitive-behaviour therapy, motivational interviewing, and mindfulness were the most common approaches. Supervision and training varied, with many therapists interested in occupational therapy-specific training. IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations for a framework of support include education about the nature of psychotherapy, training and supervision guidelines, and advocacy for occupational therapy and psychotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".