Mindfulness and therapeutic relationships: insights from a phenomenological study of occupational therapists' practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background
 A well-established body of literature highlights the importance of the therapeutic relationship when working with children and youth. A growing body of literature points to the potential of mindfulness to enhance the quality of relationships, including the therapeutic relationship. To date, little attention has been paid to this topic within the profession of occupational therapy.
 Aim
 The aim of this study was to inquire into paediatric occupational therapists’ experiences of mindfulness in the therapeutic relationship with children and youth. 
 Methods
 Heideggerian-informed hermeneutic phenomenology was employed as the methodological approach. Two key Heideggerian concepts of being-with and care served as theoretical underpinnings of the study. Semi-structured interviews were completed with eight North American occupational therapists to elicit their first-hand accounts of mindfulness in the therapeutic relationship with their paediatric clients. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a phenomenological approach.
 Results
 Four key themes were identified and include: fostering a safe space, enhancing presence, being authentic, and cultivating acceptance.
 Conclusions
 The findings offer insights regarding the potential affordances of mindfulness to support clinicians as they form of therapeutic relationships with children and youth. This study highlights research priorities for future inquiry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".