A Profile of Canadian Pediatric Occupational Therapy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study established a current profile of Canadian pediatric occupational therapy practice in terms of theories/practice models, assessments, and interventions.Method: Respondents were 272 members of the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists who indicated that pediatrics was their primary area of clinical practice. A purpose-designed survey was mailed to participants.Results: The response rate was adequate at 27.2% (n = 272/1,000). The primary client groups seen by pediatric therapists were developmental delay, learning disability, neurology, and those requiring rehabilitation. Sensory Integration and Client-Centred Practice were the most frequently utilized theories/practice models. The most commonly used assessments were the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, and the Sensory Profile. The most frequently used intervention techniques with pediatric clients were the instruction of parents/caregivers and children; assistive devices, adaptive equipment, and technology; activities of daily living/self-care skills; and environmental modification/access/structuring/adaptation.Conclusions: Pediatric occupational therapists mainly used theories/ practice models that focused on three areas: Client-Centred practice, practice-oriented theories, and several theories/practice models based on occupation. Interventions focused on teaching, activities unique to occupational therapy, and on the functional needs of the client.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".