Referral Prioritization in Home Care Occupational Therapy: A Matter of Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Prioritizing referrals for home care occupational therapy is somewhat subjective, and public and patient perspectives on waiting list priorities are unknown. PURPOSE.: To explore the views of home care occupational therapists (OTs), older persons (OPs) and adults with disabilities on waiting list priorities, as well as issues and challenges underlying these priorities. METHOD.: We conducted in-depth interviews with 11 OTs, 10 OPs and 9 adults with disabilities. Participants were asked to prioritize referral scenarios while explaining their choices. Directed and conventional content analysis allowed the identification of themes for each group of participants. FINDINGS.: OTs experienced conflicts of values but mainly prioritized referrals based on client safety. OPs sought to maximize client's independence, and persons with disabilities aimed to improve clients' social participation. IMPLICATIONS.: OTs should seek the perspectives of their target clientele on referral prioritization criteria and strive to adjust prioritization practices accordingly.
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 | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| 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".