2020/12/01 by Karen Whalley Hammell · 1 citation
Health Professions · Medicine · #Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility #Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders #Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
paper · doi:10.1177/0008417420965741
crossref issued 2020/12/01 · crossref published 2020/12/01 · crossref published-online 2020/12/01 · crossref published-print 2020/12/01 · openalex publication_date 2020/12/01 · crossref created 2020/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref deposited 2026/04/28 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30 · crossref indexed 2026/08/02
BACKGROUND.: "Choice" is central to occupational therapy's theoretical tradition, which maintains that individuals can impact their well-being through wisely choosing their occupations. However, the assumption that opportunities to choose are universally available is negated by research evidence. PURPOSE.: To review the ideology of "choice" in occupational therapy theory, and to encourage more critical approaches toward determinants of occupational opportunity and choice. KEY ISSUES.: Evidence indicates that within Canada, and throughout the world, opportunities to make occupational choices are inequitably distributed among people of different socioeconomic classes, castes, genders, races, abilities, sexualities, citizenship statuses, and experiences of colonialism. IMPLICATIONS.: Because occupation is a determinant of health and well-being, social injustices that create inequitable occupational choices are unfair violations of occupational rights. The occupational therapy profession's espoused aim of enhancing well-being through occupation demands theories that explicitly recognize the socially structured and inequitable shaping of choice, and consequent impact on people's occupational rights.