Occupational Therapists’ Perspectives for Promoting Fieldwork Experiences in Private Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited private practice fieldwork opportunities exist in Canadian occupational therapy (OT) education programs, in comparison to public health opportunities. This gap must be addressed to ensure students have opportunities to gain experience in the private sector. There are limited qualitative studies in occupational therapy that identify strategies to encourage occupational therapists to offer placements in this area. This qualitative study explored the experiences and perspectives of occupational therapists working in private practice and their motivations and uncertainty to participate in occupational therapy student education. Strategies to best support fieldwork educators as well as opportunities to advance student preparation for private practice placements, were uncovered. Using purposive sampling, nine occupational therapists working in private practice with or without fieldwork educator experience, participated in semi-structured interviews. Phenomenology was used to analyze data and determine emergent themes. Four themes emerged that highlight key considerations for occupational therapists hosting students in private practice. Motivations and hesitations for hosting students were uncovered. Strategies which can be used to directly support private practice occupational therapists and facilitate student learning at the university level prior to fieldwork placements in this area, were revealed. It is imperative to understand occupational therapist’s perspectives when hosting students as well as hesitations for not hosting students in private practice. These findings contribute practical and viable approaches that can be utilized by education programs and the private sector, to ensure mutually beneficial partnerships.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".