Integration of occupational therapists into family medicine groups: Physicians’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionOccupational therapists remain poorly integrated into family medicine groups in Canada. Physicians are key partners because they can advocate for resources and formulate recommendations to improve the quality of services delivered in their clinics. It is important to explore their perception of the occupational therapist’s role in family medicine groups and the factors influencing their integration.MethodA descriptive qualitative study was conducted. Six family physicians participated in an individual interview. Results were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsPhysicians consider that occupational therapists can meet the needs of diverse primary care clients. Benefits of this integration include improved clients’ functional status, early screening for developmental and age-related problems, and timely access to required care. The main barriers to integration are lack of funding, space and knowledge of the occupational therapist’s role. The strategies identified to facilitate integration are promoting and clarifying the role of occupational therapists in family medicine groups and developing effective integration models.ConclusionAccording to physicians, the inclusion of occupational therapists in family medicine groups could help primary care teams address many of their clients’ needs and improve the overall quality of primary care services. Targeted strategies are needed to promote the integration of occupational therapists into this practice context.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".