The Place of Intuition in the Clinical Reasoning of Occupational Therapists: A Multiple‐Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Clinical reasoning is a crucial process for healthcare professionals, involving both intuitive and analytical components. Intuition, which can be defined as immediate and context‐sensitive thoughts, would play an important role in the clinical reasoning of occupational therapists (OTs). However, understanding of how OTs use their intuition remains limited. Thus, this study aimed to better understand the place of intuition in the clinical decision‐making of OTs in a real‐life context. Methods. Adopting a constructivist epistemological stance, this qualitative multiple‐case study involved four OTs. For each OT, data were collected through a video‐recorded clinical session and a subsequent explicitation interview. Conversational analysis of the video data and inductive thematic analysis of the interviews were conducted. Results. The OTs, with 2 to 34 years of experience, demonstrated a nuanced use of intuition in their clinical reasoning. Experienced OTs relied more heavily on intuitive reasoning, seamlessly integrating it into their analytical approach, while novice therapists alternated between the two modes, giving equal importance to both. Key themes highlighted the central role of practice context, professional experience, the therapeutic relationship, and emotional management in the expression of intuition. Conclusion. The study highlights the decisive influence of the practice context whether routine or unusual, on the expression of OTs’ intuition. Additionally, the findings underscore the regulatory role of the clinicians’ emotions and the importance of empathic management of the clients’ emotional aspects, which shape the intuitive reasoning processes.
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 | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".