Bridging the transition from homelessness: Developing an occupational therapy framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapists support individuals experiencing homelessness in traditional roles, and occupational therapy positions focussed specifically on homelessness appear to be growing. To develop and refine a framework to guide occupational therapy practice and research in homelessness. We developed a framework and refined it through a stakeholder consultation process conducted with 17 international occupational therapy experts using an online survey. In this survey, we presented an initial framework and requested qualitative feedback. We analyzed this qualitative data using content analysis. Stakeholder feedback was categorized into eight recommendations: (1) Revision to the ‘four processes’; (2) Emphasizing social justice and systems-level advocacy; (3) Reflecting intersectionality; (4) Emphasizing meaningful activity; (5) Emphasizing peer support; (6) Incorporating a focus on independent living skills; (7) Increasing a focus on an activity for addressing substance misuse; and (8) Acknowledging cognitive and physical health. Each of these recommendations was incorporated into a refined version of this framework. These recommendations and a refined version of the framework are presented in this paper. We have developed and refined a framework aimed at guiding practice and research in occupational therapy in homelessness that will be evaluated in future research. Though a range of frameworks exists for guiding the practice of occupational therapists more generally, this framework represents the first that is focussed specifically on guiding occupational therapy practice and research with individuals who experience homelessness. Research and practice implications are discussed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".