Occupational Therapy Practice in Palliative and End-of-Life Care in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. There is an emerging evidence base about the scope of occupational therapy in palliative and end-of-life care, but little is known about this practice in Québec or barriers impeding it. Purpose. To describe Québec occupational therapists’ practice in palliative and end-of-life care and barriers they encounter. Method. Using the Québec regulatory board members list, we invited occupational therapists working in palliative and end-of-life care to answer an online survey comprising 24 closed- and 5 open-ended questions. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Findings. The 67 survey participants mainly optimized comfort and safety in meaningful occupations such as mobility, transfers, and hygiene. Barriers to their practice included organizational obstacles and unfamiliarity with their role. Implications. Findings highlight the need to improve education and awareness among occupational therapists and other healthcare professionals about the scope of what occupational therapists can do in palliative and end-of-life care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".