Occupational therapists’ perspectives on the implementation of client-centred practice in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Client-centred practice was theorised by occupational therapists in Canada and subsequently introduced into the Tanzanian occupational therapy curriculum. There has been no critique of its relevance for African countries, nor research into occupational therapists’ perspectives of applying client-centred practice in African world contexts. This study aimed to determine the understanding and use of client-centred practice by occupational therapists in Tanzania. Method A descriptive cross-sectional design was used. Working Tanzanian occupational therapists ( n=64) completed a questionnaire based on two existing instruments. Data were analysed using SSPS (version 20.0) and qualitative coding. Results Barriers were shortage of time (79.7%), client-centred practice is too demanding for the client (78.1%) and the therapist and client have different goals (76.6%). Enablers included education about client-centred practice as a student (98.4%), client involvement in planning services (96.9%) and staff and service provider training (96.9%). Three themes were identified: client-centred practice enriches relationships, is difficult to implement, and needs to be supported by increasing human resources, further training and client education. Conclusion The implementation of client-centred practice in Tanzania is compromised by the resource-constrained and hospi-centric health service context. Alternative practice approaches that are aligned with collectivist cultural attitudes could be considered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".