Role of Occupational Therapy Assessment and Office Ergonomics to Support Students with Accommodations in Higher Learning: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postsecondary students with disabilities (SWDs) face significant challenges to their academic and personal well-being. There is a demand for more supportive strategies to facilitate fulfilling and equitable academic experiences for SWDs. This review aimed to (1) determine the effectiveness of various interventions, programs, and accommodations for enhancing the overall well-being of postsecondary SWDs and (2) evaluate the implications of these support strategies for disability service providers at postsecondary institutions. A narrative review was conducted, examining 13 studies aimed at enhancing the well-being of postsecondary SWDs. Studies were classified using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Model. Ergonomics, assistive technology, and counselling programs had positive improvements on the academic success of SWDs. In SWDs, health status was associated with higher community participation, and physical interventions were beneficial to reducing pain over time. Coaching and mentoring opportunities were beneficial for successful goal fulfilment. However, there remains a risk of digital eye strain when using technology to support postsecondary SWDs. The findings indicate that a range of support strategies can benefit several different components of SWDs experiences. This review identifies research gaps and opportunities to examine support strategies to improve the physical and mental well-being of SWDs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".