Occupational Therapists' Perceptions of Their Role with People Who are Homeless
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The needs of individuals who are homeless are often unmet. This study identifies the potential role of occupational therapy with adults who are homeless. Method: This was a qualitative study of occupational therapists working in Montreal, Québec, Canada, consisting of two survey modes: focus group and self-administered questionnaires. A moderate inductive strategy was used in the analysis of the responses. Findings: Twenty-two occupational therapists participated. The traditional roles of assessing, treating and conducting research were discussed, as well as the emerging role of occupational therapists as case managers, outreach workers and advocates. The challenges to implementing services included health care structures and processes. The potential facilitators included active leadership and advocacy by occupational therapists regarding the needs of those who are homeless. Implications: There is a clear and pertinent role for occupational therapy services with those who are homeless. The traditional process of service delivery presents challenges that must be addressed. The topic of homelessness and role-emerging practice placements with this population should be included in the occupational therapy curriculum.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".