A global survey on occupational therapy education: Findings and implications for diploma level education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2016 Minimum Standards for the Education of Occupational Therapists published by the World Federation of Occupational Therapist (WFOT) recognise that the competencies required for practice as an occupational therapist necessitate that occupational therapy programmes be situated in institutes of higher education, with graduates awarded a minimum of a bachelor’s degree or equivalent credential. Given this recognition, WFOT conducted a survey to understand issues that impact a transition to degree level education in jurisdictions that continue to offer diploma programmes. An overall 84% response rate was received for the online survey that was circulated to 98 WFOT member organisations in March 2021. Survey results indicated that diploma level education is offered in the jurisdiction of 15 member organisations. Only two of the member organisations indicated that a transition to degree level education is not a goal at this time, although for many, planning was at an early stage. Most member organisations with diploma level education identified the need to influence their government to enable widespread transition to degree level education. Factors most highly rated for influencing such a transition included awareness of competency requirements for occupational therapists, demand for occupational therapy services, access to upgrading programmes, availability of student practice placements, and government and regulatory standards. Recommended strategies to facilitate the transition process included engaging in advocacy and awareness raising, adopting a competency framework, creating opportunities for upgrading, and seeking out collaborative partnerships.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".