Professional Practice Leadership in Occupational Therapy: A Grounded Theory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian health care system faces challenges of restructuring and change. Health care literature stress the need for leadership to guide and support health care professionals through these processes. Research specific to professional practice leadership in the profession of occupational therapy is lacking. How might understanding what occupational therapy professional practice leaders actually do contribute to knowledge about leadership in the profession? Examining this question contributes to improved understanding about leadership activities for professional practice leaders, as well as offering useful insights for those considering a professional practice leadership role. A grounded theory study was undertaken to address this question. The results support a conceptual model that describes professional practice leadership occurring through a process of reflective practice and by building relationships, engaging therapists, positioning occupational therapy within the organization, navigating organizational constraints and possibilities, and enacting moral agency. These findings provide valuable insights for professional practice leaders, making explicit current tacit leadership activities and fostering reflection on current leadership practices and educational needs. Insights for hospital administrators include a better understanding of the complexity of how professional practice leadership is enacted. The findings may also have implications for the design of health care systems that support leadership activities.
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 | 0.034 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".