Behaviour Change Domains Likely to Influence Occupational Therapist Use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Occupational therapists have shown low adoption rates for many evidence-based practices. One such practice is the limited uptake of standardized outcome measures such as the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Use of this measure has not consistently translated into practice despite decades of encouragement. Theory-based approaches to understanding healthcare provider behaviour change are needed if we are to realize the goal of attaining practice that is in keeping with evidence. This study utilized the Theoretical Domains Framework, a theory-based approach for understanding barriers to evidence-based practice, in order to increase our understanding of the limited uptake of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in occupational therapy practice. Methods. Theoretical Domains Framework methods were followed. First, primary data was collected from occupational therapists through semistructured interviews that focused on key behaviour change domains as they related to the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Two independent researchers coded interview data into domains, derived belief statements from the data, and used belief strength, conflict, and frequency to determine the more and less influential domains for using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Results. Interviews with 15 practicing occupational therapists across a range of practice areas yielded six key behaviour change domains for increasing the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The more relevant domains were Social influences, Social professional role and identity, Beliefs about consequences, Beliefs about capabilities, Skills, and Behavioural regulation). The other eight domains were found to be less relevant. Conclusion. We identified important domains and beliefs that influence the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure by occupational therapists. Results inform our understanding of the use of this measure in practice and identify potential targets for behaviour change interventions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".