Occupational Therapist–Teacher Collaboration in Inclusive Education in Québec: A Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In inclusive schools, collaboration between occupational therapists (OTs) and teachers has the potential to build capacities among these school-team members working with students with disabilities. Current evidence supports multi-tiered delivery models, such that OT interventions are integrated within the context of school life. Collaboration, however, is a complex multifaceted phenomenon that poses systemic, organizational, or interpersonal challenges. Purpose: This qualitative descriptive study explored the perspectives on current and ideal collaborative practices and associated contextual barriers and facilitators related to collaboration, as described by elementary teachers and OTs. Method: Two focus groups were conducted with OTs ( n = 5) and elementary teachers ( n = 6) working in inclusive schools in Québec (Canada) in French and English language settings. Qualitative data were transcribed and analyzed thematically. Findings: Four thematic categories were identified: Organization of services scaffolds collaborative practices; varying perspectives of the OT role influence collaboration; establishing and navigating collaborative relationships; and considerations for optimal collaboration. Conclusion: These findings have practice and policy implications regarding the organization of OT services as well as team professional development. Understanding these challenges is fundamental to tailoring future knowledge translation interventions to optimize school collaboration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".