Occupational therapy services in primary care: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim: To examine and describe the current evidence about occupational therapy services in primary care. Background: Interprofessional primary care teams have been introduced to support the changing demographics and provide more comprehensive and coordinated care. Occupational therapists have the opportunity to play an important role in this expanding area of practice. To do so, occupational therapists must develop roles built on evidence and a clear understanding of the care delivery context. Methods: A scoping review was conducted based on the scientific and grey literature. Studies that described or examined the occupational therapy role with clients (individuals, groups, communities, populations) of all ages, conditions or occupational issues in a primary care context and that presented or referred to an occupational therapist working in a primary care setting were included. Studies were excluded if they were not in English or French. The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement was used to chart the data. Findings: 129 articles were identified, with 62 non-research and 67 research-focussed articles. A total of 268 assessments and 868 interventions were identified. The top interventions offered by occupational therapists were referring to/advocating for/coordinating/linking to and navigating community services ( n = 36 articles), chronic disease management ( n = 34 articles)/self-management education ( n = 28 articles), health promotion ( n = 30 articles) and falls prevention ( n = 27 articles). The predominant focus in the literature is on adult and older adult populations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".