The Ethical Issues of School-Based Occupational Therapy Practice in Quebec-Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Quebec-Canada, school-based occupational therapy has expanded over the last decade. This emerging practice context poses distinctive ethical issues for occupational therapists, but no empirical studies have documented them. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the ethical issues faced by school-based occupational therapists in Quebec. Using a qualitative inductive research design, 19 school-based occupational therapists practicing in Quebec were interviewed individually. All participants reported experiencing ethical issues in their practice. Nine categories emerged from the analyzed data, covering ethical issues in the micro-environment (n = 4), meso-environment (n = 3), and macro-environment (n = 2). In the micro-environment, occupational therapists face ethical issues relating to collaboration with school teams, management of restraints and seclusion, compliance with practice standards, and accessibility of services. In the meso-environment, they experience ethical issues linked to the cultural clash between healthcare and education, the inclusion of students with disabilities in schools, and the lack of understanding and recognition of occupational therapy. In the macro-environment, they encounter ethical issues arising from the lack of resources, and the lack of intersectoral collaboration between healthcare and education systems. Describing the ethical issues of occupational therapy school-based practice is a first step toward identifying ways of preventing and resolving them.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".