Bibliometric study of research productivity in occupational therapy and physical therapy/physiotherapy in four Western countries and five Asian countries/regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High-quality research is the foundation of occupational therapy and physical therapy/physiotherapy. A bibliometric study on the research productivity of occupational therapy and physical therapy/physiotherapy scholars in different Western and Asian countries/regions could provide a snapshot of current research achievement in rehabilitation science. METHOD: On the basis of an understanding of the leading role of rehabilitation research in Western countries and a recognition of achievements made by Asian occupational therapy and physical therapy/physiotherapy scholars, the current bibliometric study examined the research productivity of occupational therapy and physical therapy/physiotherapy professors and associate professors from four Western countries (Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom) and five Asian countries/regions (Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea). The h-indices of these scholars were retrieved online and aggregated to quantify the research productivity of institutions and countries/regions. RESULTS: Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and the United States were identified as countries/regions with higher research productivity in occupational therapy and physical therapy/physiotherapy. The institutions were ranked on the basis of the median h-indices of their professors and associate professors; the top 20 productive institutions with occupational therapy programmes had a median h-index of 17.5 or higher, whereas the benchmark of the top 20 institutions with physical therapy/physiotherapy programmes was 25. CONCLUSION: Professors and associate professors in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and the United States are productive in occupational therapy and physical therapy/physiotherapy research. The number of faculty members and university connections are regarded as important for research achievement. Recommendations for various levels of collaboration are provided.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".