Beyond research literature: Occupational therapists’ perspectives on and uses of “evidence” in everyday practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent literature in evidence-based practice indicates that evidence is defined differently from practice and research perspectives. However, few published works address therapists' perspectives of the nature and use of evidence in everyday practice. PURPOSE: This study describes the definition, types, and use of evidence from the perspective of six school-based occupational therapists. METHOD: Data were collected through focus groups and participant-submitted documentation and analyzed using qualitative and quantitative content analysis. FINDINGS: Two categories of evidence emerged: internalized evidence and evidence gathered during the intervention process. Clinical reasoning, identified as a key skill in evidence-based practice, supported the synthesis of therapist internalized evidence with "in-the-moment" evidence gathered from activity, contextual, and occupational analyses of the client. IMPLICATIONS: The findings support current literature that has suggested expanding the definition of evidence (i.e., more than research findings alone). Further investigation of evidence building in practice may help in constructing a more inclusive professional culture of evidence-based 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 | 0.193 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".