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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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".