Preparing occupational therapy students for practice in rural areas: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Despite greater needs in rural areas, occupational therapists are maldistributed to urban spaces which limits service access and health outcomes for rural people and communities. Preparation of students for rural practice may improve rural workforce recruitment and retention; however, the range and scope of preparation strategies employed by education providers are unclear. This scoping review aims to understand and describe the range of strategies education services use to prepare occupational therapy students for rural practice across the globe. Methods and analysis The study will include all publications about strategies used to prepare occupational therapy students for future rural practice, prior to enrolment, during the programme or on graduation. MEDLINE (Ovid) , Emcare (Ovid) , APA PsychInfo (Ovid) , CINAHL (EBSCOhost) , Health Source: Nursing/Academic ( EBSCOHost) , Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC) , Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD) , and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) databases will be systematically searched in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese languages. Citations will be screened by two or more independent researchers against inclusion criteria and data extracted from included publications using a customised extraction tool. Frequency counts will be provided for study type, student location and sociodemographics, and the timing/educational strategy. The extracted data will be analysed using a matrix framework and presented in diagrammatic/tabular form and accompanied by a narrative summary which will describe how the results relate to the reviews’ questions. Ethics and dissemination This study will not involve human/animal subjects and does not require ethics approval. Results will be disseminated to relevant groups in peer-reviewed journal(s) and at relevant occupational therapy, higher education and/or rural health conferences. Results will also be translated and shared in blogs/social media to support access for non-research audiences and shared with other regional universities to influence curriculum design.
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 | 0.117 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.020 |
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".