Clarifying the Construct of Occupational Engagement for Occupational Therapy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational engagement (OE) has been presented as a core construct in occupational therapy; however, its broad conceptualization and confounding definitions are problematic. Clarifying the construct of OE would help occupational therapists to explicate the nature of their practice. The purpose of this study was to explore occupational therapists' perspectives of the construct of OE. Qualitative descriptive methodology was used to collect data using semistructured interviews with nine practicing occupational therapists in the Greater Toronto Area. Qualitative content analysis, using an inductive approach, was employed to uncover emerging categories. Participants spoke about transitioning from therapeutic engagement to OE with a client by following a client's path of choice. The essential elements and influencers of OE were highlighted, and the relationship between OE and occupational performance was discussed. The findings provide an initial understanding of essential elements necessary to enable clients to initiate engagement in therapy and then, subsequently, in occupations of their choice.
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 | 0.031 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads 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".