Gross and applied anatomy pedagogical approaches in occupational therapy education: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Historically, dissection is considered the 'gold standard' for teaching foundational anatomy to student occupational therapists. However, many programmes no longer have access to gross anatomy laboratory resources, as it is considered too costly. To address this limitation, applied anatomy instructors have developed innovative novel approaches to teach gross and applied anatomy to student occupational therapists, including live/surface anatomy, medical imaging, and more recently, computer-aided instruction. The types of different anatomy pedagogical approaches used and their impact on learning outcomes in occupational therapy education are unclear. The purpose of this scoping review is to map the types of musculoskeletal gross and applied anatomy pedagogical approaches used in occupational therapy curricula. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) six-stage scoping review framework, approximately 304 different search combinations will be searched across five electronic library databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and ERIC) from their inception to December 2021, in addition to conducting consultation exercises with relevant stakeholders. After title/abstract and full-text screening, included articles will be charted, collated and summarised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not involve human or animal subjects. Therefore, research ethics approval is not required. The proposed scoping review will help the research, institutional and clinical rehabilitation communities to better understand the types of musculoskeletal gross and applied anatomy pedagogical approaches used to foster, build and promote musculoskeletal foundational knowledge in occupational therapy education. This could potentially inform the future physical medicine course curricula in occupational therapy programmes. The findings of this review will be disseminated to occupational therapy instructors, occupational therapists, researchers and organisations offering occupational therapy programmes (eg, Universities).
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 | 0.081 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.012 |
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".