Exploring the Evolution and Utility of Neuro-Occupation: A Scoping Review

Neuro-occupation was developed to study the relationship between the nervous system and occupation. Pragmatic implications of neuro-occupation have not been previously summarized. This study aimed to determine how neuro-occupation has been defined, applied across relevant fields, and evolved over time. We performed a scoping review following the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Twenty-five works related to neuro-occupation published between 1997 and 2020 were included. We found that neuro-occupation evolved from utilization primarily in the United States to an international term applied to different clinical populations. Common themes were: (a) the reciprocal relationship between the nervous system and occupations; (b) the Intention, Meaning, and Perception (IMP) model of neuro-occupation; and (c) pragmatic implications for occupational therapy practice and interventions. We suggest an updated definition of neuro-occupation. In addition, we contend that although the term neuro-occupation was developed in response to historical debates in occupational therapy, continued use creates more confusion than clarity.

Plain Language Summary

Neuro-occupation was introduced as a concept to recognize the connection between the nervous system and occupations. Since it was created, the term has been minimally used in the literature and has been referred to as a concept, paradigm, a developing theoretical concept, and a clinical model/theory/framework. We performed a scoping review to determine how neuro-occupation has been defined, applied across neuroscience, occupational therapy, and occupational science, and has evolved over time. We found that neuro-occupation originated in the United States, but has been utilized by scholars in South Korea, Israel, and most recently, Iran. We identified three common themes throughout our included works. From our findings, we suggest an updated definition of neuro-occupation. In addition, we argue that this term was relevant when it was first introduced; however, as the fields have progressed, we believe that continued use of the term neuro-occupation creates more confusion than clarity.