A Scoping Review of the Experiences of Ableism of Occupational Therapists and Occupational Therapy Students with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review synthesizes the literature related to the experiences of ableism for occupational therapists and occupational therapy students with disabilities. It was conducted across peer-reviewed published academic literature using seven health sciences databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, Web of Science). Our search, without date restrictions, was conducted up to July 2024 and yielded fifteen articles. Four themes emerged: (1) social/interpersonal experiences of ableism; (2) environmental barriers in occupational therapy education or workplace settings; (3) adaptive responses to institutional and interpersonal ableism; and (4) social advantages of disability. These findings contribute to effectively meeting the competency of equity and justice within the 2019 Position Statement of the World Federation of Occupational Therapists. The findings can help to inform discussions about improving equity, diversity, and inclusion within the occupational therapy profession by raising awareness of how professional inequities may affect equity-deserving groups.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".