Student Occupational Therapists Experience of Bullying in Placements: Exploratory Study Across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bullying in placements is a phenomenon that is reported by numerous healthcare disciplines. The limited literature on occupational therapy and student bullying accounts that incivility during placement is both widespread and significantly impacts learning. This study aimed to 1) gather data on the prevalence, type, and effects of bullying that Canadian occupational therapy students experienced while on placement, and 2) explore students’ perspectives on current reporting processes and potential mitigation strategies. Using a phenomenological approach, a mixed-methods descriptive and exploratory study was conducted. An anonymous Qualtrics survey consisting of multiple-choice, Likert scale and open-ended questions was completed by past occupational therapy graduates from the years 2018-2022 across Canada. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The results suggest that occupational therapy students across Canada experienced bullying on their fieldwork placements. Four major themes were identified in the data including types of bullying, impact on students, student responses to bullying, and the reporting experience. Bullying had both emotional and psychological effects on students with “loss of confidence”, “dreading going to placement”, and “self-doubt” as the most frequently reported impacts of bullying. Canadian occupational therapy programs and academic fieldwork coordinators must be proactive in preventing placement bullying. Findings from this study can serve to inform occupational therapy academic fieldwork coordinators and placement sites on how to create safe learning environments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".