Establishing Therapeutic Relationships with Immigrant Families of Disabled Children: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Cultural approaches are used to acknowledge the diversity and the social positioning individuals bring into the therapeutic relationship. Purpose. This scoping review describes the utilization of cultural approaches to build and sustain therapeutic relationships between immigrant families of disabled children and occupational therapists. Method. This scoping review was based on the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. Six databases were searched, and 24 articles published between 2010 and 2025 were included. Results. Cultural competence, cultural sensitivity and cultural humility were the cultural approaches mentioned in 15 studies, with nine not mentioning a specific cultural approach to facilitate the therapeutic relationship. All the studies outlined strategies to facilitate the relationship. Various culturally appropriate communicative and collaborative strategies were used to (i) establish rapport and trust (ii) align goals and intervention and (iii) facilitate advocacy and participation. These strategies were independently described and were not specific to any approach. Conclusion. Facilitating the therapeutic relationship with immigrant families of disabled children does not align specifically with any of the cultural approaches within occupational therapy. This reinforces the need to focus not on the cultural approaches, but on refining the strategies required to facilitate the therapeutic relationship.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".