Clinical reasoning of Brazilian expert occupational therapists: a constructivist grounded theory study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it