Spirituality in occupational therapy practice: A scoping review with narrative synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Spirituality is a fundamental aspect of human existence. Additionally, spirituality is acknowledged within many occupational therapy models of practice. Despite this, other health professions are dominant in published spirituality research and resources. Therefore, to develop our profession-specific perspective, a broad range of occupational therapy spirituality literature was explored to identify how international occupational therapists integrate spirituality into practice. Methods: This study undertook a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) approach. Six databases were searched for peer-reviewed sources which focused on the experience of occupational therapists, and on concepts relating to spirituality and religion. Fifty-four articles were included in the scoping review. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to present these findings as a narrative synthesis. Results: The three main findings were as follows: (a) key concepts of spirituality definitions included a person finding 'meaning', 'purpose in life' and 'connection'; (b) a spectrum of approaches were used to address client spirituality; (c) training and spirituality supportive healthcare approaches were facilitators, whereas lack of time and funding were the chief barriers. Conclusion: Occupational therapy in many countries would benefit from further research, guidelines and policies and training that applies spirituality and its related concepts to occupational therapy practice.
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 | 0.021 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".