An Investigation of Occupational Therapists’ and Physical Therapists’ Perspectives on the Process of Change That Occurs among Clients during Rehabilitation, Including Their Use of Response Shift and Transformative Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A significant change in one’s health status creates a process of change that has an impact on one’s health-related quality of life. This process has been conceptualized in several theories, including response shift (RS) and transformative learning (TL). The purpose of this study was to investigate occupational therapists’ and physical therapists’ perspectives on the process of change that occurs in clients during rehabilitation. Method: An interpretive description approach guided this study. Five profession-specific focus groups were conducted. Participants were asked about their ideas, thoughts, and understanding of processes of change. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed. Data analysis was carried out using both inductive and deductive methods. Results: Participants were 14 physiotherapists and nine occupational therapists with 5–30 years of experience in rehabilitation settings. Participants recognized personal change in clients and noted that it involves many steps. They tried to facilitate this change by identifying signs of readiness. Without using theory-specific terminology, participants described observing and using concepts of RS and TL. Conclusions: Occupational therapists and physiotherapists play an important role in helping people learn to live with their chronic illnesses and disabilities. Further studies are needed to investigate how therapists can facilitate the process of change, including using RS and TL concepts and how this facilitation could improve clients’ health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".