Exploring Therapeutic Relationships in Pediatric Occupational Therapy: A Meta-Ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Developing strong therapeutic relationships with families is a crucial aspect of pediatric occupational therapy. However, building such relationships is complex as they involve multiple directions of interaction. Purpose. To provide a thorough interpretation of children's, caregivers’, and occupational therapists’ experience of the therapeutic relationship. Method. A meta-ethnography was realized to synthesize qualitative studies. A systematic search was carried out using five databases from 2005 to 2022. The CAPS checklist was used to appraise included studies’ quality. The analysis was completed using a constant comparison of findings. Findings. Three themes emerged from the 14 studies synthesized. The first theme illustrates that the therapeutic relationship can have different meanings depending on the perspective of children, caregivers, or occupational therapists. The second theme explores the components impacting the experience of the relationship. These include the power dynamics, the communication, and respect for diversity. Finally, the third theme illustrates how the relationship can empower positive change. Implications. Children, caregivers, and occupational therapists each have a perspective that ought to be heard. Occupational therapists should actively ask for children's and caregivers’ perspectives to encourage power sharing and effective communication. By doing so, occupational therapists can strengthen the therapeutic relationship, which, in turn, promotes positive change.
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 | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".