Evidence on occupational therapy and child and adolescent mental health in disciplinary journals: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In recent years, there has been a sustained increase in the prevalence of child and adolescent mental health diagnoses, which are associated with difficulties in the emotional, social, family and occupational spheres. Evidence supports the need for interdisciplinary and timely treatment to address these problems. Given the long history of occupational therapy in this field, it is essential to examine the evidence supporting its work. Objective To characterize academic publications on occupational therapy in disciplinary journals related to child and adolescent mental health. Method A bibliometric analysis with an exploratory-descriptive scope was conducted. Searches were performed in the SCOPUS and Web of Science databases, along with manual searches in disciplinary journals in Spanish and Portuguese. A total of 269 articles published between 1985 and 2022 were selected and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Results An increase in the number of publications was observed starting from 1985 t, with exponential growth since 2010. The thematic focus is on childhood, associated with diagnoses of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder. The most commonly used disciplinary models are Sensory Integration, Models of Human Occupation, and the Canadian Model. Quantitative studies with a descriptive scope predominate. Conclusion Despite the importance of the topic for occupational therapy, the publications are scarce, focused, and have low levels of evidence. The need to promote more disciplinary research that addresses the diversity of approaches and areas of work is emphasized. It is crucial to encourage analytical and experimental studies to raise the levels of evidence in addressing child and adolescent mental health.
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 | 0.023 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.241 | 0.223 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".