Community-based participatory research remodelling occupational therapy to foster older adults’ social participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Occupational therapists who provide community-based services are well positioned to foster older adults' social participation. However, community occupational therapists rarely address social participation and require support to change their practice. PURPOSE.: This study initiated a remodelling of community occupational therapy services by (a) selecting practices fostering older adults' social participation and (b) identifying factors that could affect their integration. METHOD.: A community-based participatory research study was conducted in a large Canadian city. Four focus group meetings and seven individual interviews were held with 28 key informants. FINDINGS.: A continuum of emerging practices was identified, including personalized, group-based, and community-based interventions. Potential enablers of these practices included clinical support, better communication, and user involvement. Organizational and systemic barriers were related to the institutional culture and performance indicators. IMPLICATIONS.: These results point to innovative ways to foster older adults' social participation and identify potential enablers and barriers affecting their integration.
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 | 0.107 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".