Psychotherapy Within Occupational Therapy Literature: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Recent changes in the Canadian regulatory landscape have prompted reflections on the role and scope of occupational therapy in the provision of psychotherapy. Purpose. To document how psychotherapy has been explored in occupational therapy literature. Method. We conducted a scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines by searching eight databases (e.g., Medline, AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Sociological Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses). Articles included at the full-text stage were subjected to a narrative synthesis. Findings. A total of 207 articles met the criteria for inclusion, spanning 93 years. 47.3% of these articles represented non-empirical literature, with only 14% representing effectiveness studies, suggesting that this body of literature remains in an early stage of development. Implications. Occupational therapists have been writing about and practicing psychotherapy for nearly a century, yet there remains an important opportunity to develop and evaluate occupation-based psychotherapy approaches. Effectiveness studies are needed.
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 | 0.035 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.050 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".