Clinical reasoning of Brazilian expert occupational therapists: a constructivist grounded theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Practice-based models or theories are relevant elements for understanding deliberate thinking processes in individualizing care for a specific client in occupational therapists' practice. The Dynamic Occupational Therapy Method (DOTM) is an ongoing conceptual-methodological framework developed in Brazil since the 1970s. Objective To examine the clinical reasoning processes of expert occupational therapists employing the DOTM. Method A constructivist grounded theory approach guided this study. Data were collected and analyzed simultaneously through Constant Comparative Analysis. Individual and in-group interviews, and a reflective journal, comprised the data collection instruments. Participants were ten expert occupational therapists with: minimum of 10 years of practice experience, minimum of five years since completion of the DOTM clinical training, employing the DOTM as the main framework in practice, and considered by peers as experts. Results Two major categories emerged from data analysis: (1) the DOTM reasoning processes – construction of the situational diagnosis, establishment and management of the triadic relationship, and dialogical assessment of the therapeutic process/associative paths; (2) thinking ethical-aesthetically, associatively, and dynamically. Conclusion This research advances knowledge about the reasoning processes of expert therapists, demonstrating the importance of theoretical and methodological knowledge to inform clinical reasoning. A theory on the clinical reasoning of expert occupational therapists employing the DOTM was developed, detailing how this conceptual-methodological framework underpins reasoning by providing valuable operational concepts to support a dynamic practice centered on the clients' uniqueness and situated context.
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 | 0.031 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".