Supporting parents with disability and other challenges through occupational therapy: What is needed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Parenting is a highly valued and challenging occupational role in which many parents experience challenges. Yet the involvement of occupational therapy in supporting parenting for adults with disability and other challenges is relatively low. This paper explores what is needed to increase occupational therapy support for parents with disability and other challenges. METHODS: An international online survey was developed based on previous literature and refined via cognitive interviews. It was reviewed by international occupational therapy academics from 11 countries and translated into eight languages. The survey sought the experiences and views of occupational therapists who work with adult populations about supporting parenting occupations. For this paper, fixed-choice and free-text responses illuminating what is needed to increase the provision of that support were analysed. A mixed methods design was used, combining descriptive statistics and interpretive content analysis. Multivariate multinominal logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between needs identified and participant and practice characteristics. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: This survey and paper were developed with input from occupational therapists and occupational therapy academics from 13 countries. RESULTS: Participants (n = 1347) identified six types of factors needed to increase occupational therapy support for parenting occupations in adult populations. These were supportive institutional structures; training, resources and assessments; and recognition of occupational therapists' suitability to support parenting both within and outside the profession. Responses varied somewhat by country, setting, population, previous training and clinical experience. CONCLUSION: Increasing occupational therapy support for parents with a variety of disabilities and other challenges requires efforts from individual occupational therapists, professional bodies, organisations and educators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".