Continuing competency in ethical decision making: An interpretive description of occupational therapists’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Competency in ethical decision making is a criterion for ethical practice, and it is expected to advance with ongoing professional development. However, research exploring continuing competency needs of occupational therapists regarding ethical decision making is limited. PURPOSE.: The purpose of this study was to explore potential gaps and directions for development related to continuing competency in ethical decision making from the perspective of practicing occupational therapists. METHOD.: Interpretive description informed secondary data analysis of professional narratives from a grounded theory study regarding ethical decision making. In-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 18 occupational therapists. Data analyses focused on identifying gaps and future directions regarding continuing competency. FINDINGS.: Two main themes regarding gaps were identified: "I didn't have the knowledge" and "I don't have anybody." Education, tool development, and ethics mentorship were identified directions for development. IMPLICATIONS.: Findings advance understanding of continuing competency needs of occupational therapists regarding ethical decision making.
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 | 0.037 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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 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".