Parent Perspectives on Occupational Therapy Assessment Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Occupational therapy assessment reports in paediatric practice are written for multiple audiences, such as health professionals, school personnel, and parents. As such, reports may not meet the needs of all recipients. In an effort to better target parents in clinical report writing, the purpose of this study was to determine what parents view as important, relevant, and understandable in occupational therapy assessment reports, and to explore evidence for best clinical report-writing practices in paediatrics. Method: This qualitative study used in-depth interviews to gather parent perspectives on reports written for their children. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Interpretive description with a thematic, inductive approach was used to recognize patterns and themes by coding recurrent data and summarizing results. Findings: Ten parents completed one-on-one interviews. Five key themes were identified: generating an accurate record of assessment; answering referral queries; understanding terminology; using the report for information sharing and partnership building; and being prompted to take action. Conclusion: Results encourage therapists to include parents as the primary audience of reports, to clearly answer referral questions, and to use language and terms that are understandable. Reports must be easily shared with other stakeholders and include simple, age-appropriate recommendations that parents can implement during everyday activities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".