Cultural Humility Practices in Occupational Therapy Services: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Cultural humility may improve the quality of occupational therapy services, but how occupational therapy practitioners apply this approach in their practice contexts has not been clearly described in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To describe peer-reviewed rehabilitation literature on the practice of cultural humility and align the findings with occupational therapy practice using the Canadian Practice Process Framework (CPPF). DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were searched, using the term cultural humility to identify relevant peer-reviewed rehabilitation literature. Google Scholar and six journals were hand-searched to identify additional studies. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION: This substudy of a larger knowledge synthesis was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) scoping review methodology. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies were screened using Covidence. Study descriptors, context, population, and cultural humility elements defined by Tervalon and Murray-García (1998), and recommendations were extracted, analyzed, and mapped onto the CPPF. FINDINGS: In total, 11 studies were included. Cultural humility elements of self-reflection and critique (n = 7; 63.6%), self-awareness and egolessness (n = 8; 72.7%), and supportive interaction (n = 5; 45.4%) were identified. Most cultural humility elements aligned with the societal (n = 11; 100%) and practice (n = 10; 90.9%) contexts of the CPPF. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings highlight how occupational therapists could integrate cultural humility at each stage and in each context of their practice. Additionally, these insights can inform occupational therapy education on integrating cultural humility into training programs and guiding practitioners in applying cultural humility principles to enhance their practice. Plain-Language Summary: Cultural humility may improve the quality of occupational therapy services. How occupational therapy practitioners apply cultural humility has not been clearly described in the literature. This review describes literature on the practice of cultural humility. The findings were aligned with occupational therapy practice using the Canadian Practice Process Framework. The findings highlight how occupational therapists could integrate a cultural humility approach at each stage, in each practice process and context, and into training programs. The findings also provide a foundation for future research on how to apply cultural humility principles to improve occupational therapy services.
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 | 0.030 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".