Applying an Argumentative Process to Advocate for Occupational Therapy Service Allocation Based on Occupational Entitlement

Abstract

Problem: The current allocation of occupational therapy services in CLSCs makes it difficult for occupational therapists to intervene according to their primary expertise in occupational empowerment. To claim this situation, professionals are called upon to act as agents of change and ideally resort to an argumentative process. Objective: To apply an argumentative process to a problematic occupational situation in occupational therapy, that is to claim an allocation of occupational therapy services in CLSCs based on occupation qualification. Method: The argument process is based on the “Convictions-Réel-Actions-Fondements (CRAF)” argument framework requiring a search for arguments from a critical review of the literature. Results: The studies reviewed put forward arguments based on the values ​​and theoretical foundations of the profession. The arguments based on convincing results come from studies with a high level of scientific evidence. They show that interventions based on occupation empowerment have repercussions on participation and functioning in occupations, physical and mental well-being and health, the perception of personal efficiency, life satisfaction, social interactions, learning knowledge and life expectancy. Discussion: Empowing occupations in a prevention and health promotion approach is effective and cost-effective for a broader clientele than that currently served. Occupational therapists, eager to be agents of change in their environment, could replicate the argumentation process to apply it to a problematic clinical situation.