Psychologists perceptions of Occupational Therapy with clients with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a review of the literature it appears that occupational therapists (OTs) have been less actively involved in the treatment of clients with eating disorders in the last 10 years. With the job markets changing for OT, it is important to understand the factors influencing therapists' involvement in this area. One factor that may limit the number of therapists working with clients with eating disorders may be the limited understanding of and lack of referrals to OT by psychologists. This study investigates whether psychologists perceive that OTs provide beneficial treatments for clients with eating disorders and if they would refer eating disorder clients to OTs. This study also aims to identify if there are similar treatment models and techniques used by both OTs and psychologists in treating this population.\nSurveys were sent to 75 members of the New York State Psychological Association who had self-identified as treating eating disorders. An effective return rate of 44% was achieved. The results of this study show that psychologists currently use many of the same treatment modalities OTs use with people with eating disorders and view those techniques as beneficial for this population. They would refer to OT for all modalities except assertiveness training. The results also show that psychologists are not aware of OT's role with this population, and, thus, education about OT is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".