Exploring the ideal practice for occupational therapists on assertive community treatment teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Canadian occupational therapists are employed as case managers on assertive community treatment (ACT) teams to support community living for individuals with severe and persistent mental illnesses. In this position, occupational therapists act primarily as generalists, typically attending appointments with clients, supervising medication adherence, supporting basic living needs, and managing client crises. Occupational therapists may also provide psychotherapy and coping skill groups, as well as profession-specific practices, such as skills training. Exploring how ACT occupational therapists describe their perceived ideal practice may support transformation in long-standing, occupational therapy practices on ACT teams. Method This qualitative, interpretive description study involved 11 Canadian ACT team occupational therapists in one individual, semi-structured in-depth interview using an interview guide containing open-ended questions. Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify themes pertaining to therapists’ descriptions of their perceived ideal occupational therapy practice on ACT teams. Results Three themes emerged: (a) Engaging in practice “with intention”; (b) Finding the space for occupational therapy practice; and (c) Supporting clients in their recovery to find their best occupational self. Conclusions The findings highlight practice possibilities for occupational therapist working on ACT teams and provide a foundation for advocating for better use of specific occupational therapy practices within community mental health settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".