Professional practices in occupational therapy, health and work: a scope review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To map and characterize the state of the art of scientific productions on the practice of occupational therapy in health and work. Method Scope review guided by the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute and presented according to the PRISMA ScR guideline. The review protocol was registered on the OSF platform. The search for articles was conducted in five electronic databases: BVS, PubMed, Scielo, CINAHL, and Scopus, covering the period from January 2014 to March 2024. Results The final sample consisted of 22 articles. The country with the highest number of publications was Canada (7), the predominant language used for manuscript writing was English (16), and most publications occurred in 2015. Regarding the practices, they mostly involve individual and group actions in the workplace and can be carried out in different contexts, such as hospitals, specialized services, public and private clinics, and the work environment. Conclusion There is still a challenge regarding the contribution and identity constitution of occupational therapists working at the interface between health and work. Additionally, understanding what constitutes a model, theoretical-methodological basis, and intervention goal is crucial to avoid confusion or overlapping with the characterization of the actual practices performed.
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 | 0.022 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".