Collaborative Relationship-Focused Occupational Therapy: Evolving Lexicon and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Client-centred practice has been part of occupational therapists’ identity for several decades. However, therapists have begun to question whether the term obstructs critical relational aspects of therapy. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to summarize critiques of the use of the term client-centred and propose an expanded descriptor and a fundamental shift in how occupational therapists engage with individuals, families, groups, communities, and populations. Key Issues. Three themes summarize critiques of how client-centred practice has been envisioned: (a) the language of client-centred, (b) insufficient appreciation of how the therapist affects the relationship, and (c) inadequate consideration of the relational context of occupation. We propose collaborative relationship-focused practice that has key relational elements of being contextually relevant, nuanced, and safe, and promotes rights-based self-determination. Conclusion. We argue that these essential relational elements, along with a focus on occupations, are required to promote occupational participation, equity, and justice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".