Not Just Mortality and Morbidity but Also Function: Opportunities and Challenges for Occupational Therapy in the World Health Organization’s Rehabilitation 2030 Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization's (WHO's) new focus on rehabilitation offers great opportunities for occupational therapy. Recognizing that the problems in daily function created by the aging of the world's population and the increasing prevalence of chronic health conditions require rehabilitation to be a vital part of health systems, the World Health Organization brought a variety of stakeholders together in 2017 and 2019 to help them develop the Rehabilitation 2030 initiative. Occupational therapy was represented by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists, the American Journal of Occupational Therapy, the Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, editorial board members of several occupational therapy journals, and other occupational therapy researchers. A major challenge to meeting the goal of sufficient rehabilitation services to meet global need is the worldwide shortage of occupational therapists. This shortage can be attributed to a paucity of knowledge about occupational therapy as a health care profession, lack of understanding of the occupational therapy scope of practice, the cost of education required to become an occupational therapist, and the need for occupational therapy salaries to offset educational costs. Nonetheless, ongoing success in research and clinical outcomes will increase knowledge of the value of occupational therapy and increase the size of the profession. WHO's focus on function is to be lauded. Yet, occupational therapists must not be content with an emphasis on function. They also need to advocate for contextual changes that eliminate barriers to participation and engagement experienced by people with disability.
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 | 0.034 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".