Addressing the ethical issues of school-based occupational therapy practice: Perspectives from Quebec-Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School-based occupational therapists often encounter ethical issues that challenge core professional values. When unresolved, these ethical issues can have significant negative consequences. However, solutions to address them are not well-documented in existing literature. This study aimed to describe the solutions used or considered by school-based occupational therapists to address the ethical issues encountered in their practice. A qualitative inductive research design inspired by Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology was employed. Nineteen school-based occupational therapists practicing in Quebec, Canada were interviewed individually. Data analysis revealed 31 distinct themes. The results indicate that participants used 20 different solutions to address specific categories of ethical issues they face. Most of these solutions targeted ethical issues emerging from the micro-environment and are individual in nature. Additionally, the study identified 11 potential solutions applicable across all categories of ethical issues, the majority of which are structural in nature. By providing a comprehensive overview of these solutions, this study offers valuable insights and practical tools for occupational therapists to address the ethical issues of school-based 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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".