es enjeux ethiques de la pratique privee de l’ergotherapie : perceptions d’ergotherapeutes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Quebec, 31% of occupational therapists work in the private sector, which is constantly growing. To date, no studies have specifically documented the ethical issues involved in this practice. The objective of this study was to explore these issues, that is, situations that could compromise the respect of an ethical value. Using a phenomenology-inspired research protocol, seven occupational therapists were interviewed in semi-directed individual interviews. Based on the conceptual framework of Swisher and colleagues, the interview questionnaire permitted the identification of different types of ethical issues. The results show that several values are likely to be compromised: patient well-being, patient autonomy, public safety, distributive justice, quality of interventions, competent practice, professional independence, honesty and professionalism. Although occupational therapists are concerned about the well-being of patients, there are a number of factors that appear to contribute to compromised values, including dual-loyalty situations experienced by occupational therapists, third-party interference in the clinical process, and the funding of clinics. Moreover, the ethical issues of private practice occupational therapy are mainly macroscopic. The ability of occupational therapists to perceive some of these issues seems to be related to some of their characteristics, that is, their ethical sensitivity and the fact that they are novices. The results of this study are generally in line with those documented in the physiotherapy literature and demonstrate the lack of support available to occupational therapists, notably novices, to help effectively overcome these issues.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".