Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing French-Canadian Lifestyle Redesign <sup>®</sup> in Occupational Therapy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Although Lifestyle Redesign ® is an important preventive occupational therapy approach fostering meaningful routines to support health and well-being, little data exists to support its implementation in new sociocultural contexts. Purpose. To explore facilitators and barriers to a future implementation of the French-Canadian Lifestyle Redesign ® (Remodeler sa vie ® ) in occupational therapy practice, as perceived by occupational therapists (OTs), occupational therapy students, decision makers and community partners. Method. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, this action-research study involved 58 purposefully selected participants trained in the approach. Eleven focus groups were conducted using three semi-structured interview guides and facilitation tools. Findings. Participants (86.2% women, aged 20 to 72; mean = 43.2, SD = 12.5) identified 36 influential factors, with public sector OTs facing the most barriers. Key facilitators included the approach's strong evidence base, its relevance to aging populations, key actors’ openness and engagement, and new social trends. Barriers stemmed from the approach's complexity, resource constraints, socio-political challenges, implementation efforts and uncertainty about older adults’ engagement in this approach. Equitable access to the approach was a common concern. Conclusion. By addressing the factors influencing the implementation of Remodeler sa vie ® , this study advances knowledge on integrating preventive approaches to promote healthy aging in Canada and internationally.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".