Involvement of Occupational Therapy Departments in Research: A Provincial Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is increasingly recognized that research is necessary to advance the practice of occupational therapy. The objective of this study was to determine whether occupational therapy departments in Quebec were commonly involved in research, and whether participation varied with the size of department and type of work setting. Secondly, enablers and barriers to participation in research were identified. A random sample of occupational therapy departments, stratified by size, were surveyed by mail. Participation rate was 74.8% (107/143). Participation in research was noted in half of the departments surveyed (51/107), most frequently as collaborator. Involvement in research was associated (p < .001) with a greater number of therapists in the department. Furthermore, occupational therapy departments in rehabilitation centres and in university hospitals were more likely to participate in research (79% and 90% respectively), whereas participation was lower for long-term care facilities (29%) and community health clinics (38%). When asked to rank factors that may facilitate participation in research, the highest rankings were given to: time allotted to research, research as a priority for administration, adequate financial support, and presence of an occupational therapy researcher and a research centre on site. This survey demonstrates that a number of factors can promote or prevent the realization of research activities within the clinical setting. Strategies are proposed to enhance the integration of research into clinical 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".