Occupational therapy private practice workforce: Issues in the 21st century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of occupational therapists working in the private sector in British Columbia (BC) has risen steadily since 2008, employing approximately 25.7% of occupational therapists by 2012. Processes used to determine workforce needs for occupational therapists in BC have previously overlooked this growing sector. PURPOSE: This study aims to describe the supply, demand, and workforce needs for occupational therapists in BC's private sector. METHOD: This exploratory study used a sample of occupational therapists and employers of occupational therapists in BC's private sector. Data collection included an online survey that collected information about the workplace and supply and demand needs. Descriptive data analysis was conducted on the survey data, and thematic analysis was used to organize participants' comments into categories. FINDINGS: In addition to identifying current supply, this study identifies barriers, facilitators, projected movement in and out of the sector, and current and future demand for occupational therapists. IMPLICATIONS: This study supports the need for an increase in supply of occupational therapists in the private sector to fulfill the current and future workforce demands.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".