Current Landscape of Teaching Diversity in Occupational Therapy Education: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Critical research in health professions education makes clear the role of educational institutions in perpetuating problematic discourses related to diversity, as well as their potential role in dismantling and rebuilding those discourses to reflect the realities of power relations that create systemic injustice. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview of current pedagogical practices and educational paradigms used by occupational therapy educators to teach concepts of, and skills for, equity and diversity. DATA SOURCES: Seven education and health care databases were searched for articles published between 2007 and 2018. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION: Consensually developed criteria were refined until an agreement rate of >80% was achieved among the authors. Inclusion criteria focused on entry-level occupational therapy education across the world and explicitly examined approaches to teaching diversity. All articles meeting the criteria were kept for full-text review (N = 87). FINDINGS: Diversity in professional occupational therapy education programs is taught within five main underlying educational paradigms and theories: competency-based (44%), social justice (29%), critical (11%), social accountability (10%), and constructivism (6%). Within these paradigms, 14 key pedagogical practices were applied, with community service learning (37%), international service learning (25%), and didactic or course-based practices (23%) making up the majority of pedagogical practices. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although current occupational therapy research demonstrates a trend toward critical paradigms and practices, problematic cultural competency theories and uncritical international service learning practices continue to dominate occupational therapy education for diversity. Educators should implement pedagogies and approaches within critical educational paradigms. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: This article highlights the importance to occupational therapy education of attending to coherence across educational ethics, paradigms, and learning outcomes in teaching for diversity and health equity.
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 | 0.037 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".