Occupational Therapists as Social Change Agents: Exploring Factors that Influence Their Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: When acting effectively in their social change agent (SCA) role, occupational therapists can impact population health and occupational justice. However, empirical evidence of the influence of personal and environmental factors on their ability to act as SCAs is scarce. PURPOSE.: To explore personal and environmental factors that influence the ability of occupational therapists to act as effective SCAs. METHOD.: We conducted a descriptive interpretive qualitative study with 18 Québec occupational therapists recognized as successful SCAs. We collected data through semi-structured interviews with three focus groups and analyzed them thematically using a lexicon. FINDINGS.: We identified nine cross-cutting personal factors, including discovery, effective communication, and planning, that enable occupational therapists to act as successful SCAs. Six thematic groups of environmental factors facilitated or hindered their actions. IMPLICATIONS.: To act effectively as SCAs, occupational therapists need to consider personal and environmental factors involved in their change project.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".