Major concepts and definitions of terms

As with the three models presented in the previous chapter, the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) aims to make explicit the relationship between person, environment and occupation. It is based on the assumption that occupation, the domain of concern for occupational therapists, is the “bridge that connects person and environment” (p. 23). The model is presented within a larger text entitled Enabling Occupation II: Advancing an Occupational Therapy Vision for Health, Well-being and Justice through Occupation (Townsend & Polatajko, 2007). Consequently, many of the assumptions that underpin the model are embedded within the larger text.

The three main components of the model are person, occupation and environment. With reference to the diagram (Figure 5.1), these three components were described by Polatajko et al. (2007, p. 23) as follows:

FIG 5.1 The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E).

From Elizabeth A. Townsend & Helene J. Polatajko, Enabling occupation II: Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being and justice through occupation, 2007. Reprinted with the permission of CAOT Publications ACE, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

This description shows that occupation is conceptualized as the agent through which person and occupation interact; portrayed as a bridge. This metaphor conjures the image of person and environment being two distinct entities that are connected through occupation, in the same way that two sides of a river are linked by a bridge. This conceptualization of person and environment as separate entities is similar to the understanding of person and environment in the PEOP model, but differs from the Person-Environment-Occupation model (Law et al., 1996) and Ecology of Human Performance (Dunn et al., 1994), reviewed in the previous chapter, with their transactive or ecological understandings of the relationship between person and environment.

Townsend and Polatajko (2007) presented six basic assumptions that underpin the model. The first two assumptions are based on the work of early occupational therapy writers such as Dunton and Howland and proposed that: (1) humans are occupational beings; and (2) occupation has therapeutic potential. The next three assumptions are that occupation: (3) affects health and well-being; (4) organizes time and brings structure to living; and (5) brings meaning to life through the combination of cultural and individual influences on the creation of meaning. The final assumption is that: (6) occupations are idiosyncratic, in that the specific occupations that a person might engage in will vary from person to person. The authors also clarified that this final assumption qualifies the earlier assumption that occupation affects health and well-being, in that this influence is not always positive; for example, occupations such as drug taking and vandalism can have a negative influence on the person or others.

In Enabling Occupation II, occupation was presented as the domain of concern of occupational therapy and an earlier definition of occupation was retained for this edition. Occupation was defined as “groups of activities and tasks of everyday life, named, organized, and given value and meaning by individuals and a culture. Occupation is everything people do to occupy themselves, including looking after themselves (self-care), enjoying life (leisure), and contributing to the social and economic fabric of their communities (productivity)” (CAOT, 1997, cited in Polatajko et al., 2007, p. 17.). Polatajko et al. emphasized that this definition, which would be consistent with most current occupational therapy understandings of occupation, represents a broader concept of the term than both the profession’s earlier notion of “occupying the invalid” (p. 17) and the general public’s association of occupation with vocation and the means of earning a living. Current occupational therapy notions of occupation refer to all forms of human action that are grouped and have meaning for individuals and cultures. The influence of the occupational performance model on CMOP-E is clear in its classification of the purpose of occupation into the three categories of self-care, productivity and leisure, although this definition of productivity could be seen as relatively broad in that it explicitly refers to the “social and economic fabric” of communities. It is also evident through the term performance components.

As the name suggests, the CMOP-E is a model of occupational performance, which is defined as “the dynamic interaction of person, occupation and environment” (Polatajko et al., 2007, p. 23). As the authors explained, the construct of occupational performance is not made explicit in the model but is foundational to and embedded within the model. To use the metaphor we introduced earlier, it is like a window through which one might look rather than a perspective in which the process of looking through the window is described. In the first approach, the window frames what you see but might not be a feature of what you are aware of or describe.

Occupational engagement and client-centred practice

The CMOP-E proposes that occupational therapy practice requires both enablement and client-centred practice. While the concept of occupational performance remains implicit in the model during its development from the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance (CMOP) (CAOT, 1997) to the CMOP-E (Polatajko et al., 2007), the authors also emphasized that the newer version of this model is not restricted to a focus on occupational performance but also encompasses the concept of occupational engagement. In explaining this difference, Polatajko et al. (2007) provided a story about a father and son who participated in marathons together. Their first run together occurred because one of the son’s classmates became paralyzed and the school organized a charity run to raise money. The son expressed a strong desire to participate. This event was the start of an occupation that father and son shared for more than four decades. The father ran, pushing his son, severely disabled from birth and only able to communicate using assistive technology operated by his head, in a wheelchair. Over the years they completed a number of marathons, 212 triathlons (in which the son sat in a dinghy and was pulled by the father while he swam) and four ironman events together. These activities had meaning for both of them. After the initial charity run, the son had commented to the father how much he had enjoyed the event because he “didn’t feel disabled” (Polatajko et al., 2007, p. 25).This, in turn, motivated the father to pursue subsequent opportunities to participate in the activity together. The “awesome feeling” he gets seeing his son smile is the reason the father does these events (p. 25). The authors used this story to illustrate that occupational performance is a more limited concept than occupational engagement, in that the son did not perform the occupation but engaged in it fully.

This story also illustrates the importance of the second major proposition in Enabling Occupation II; that enablement through occupation is the current core of occupational therapy. The authors proposed that this focus contrasted with the initial concern of the profession of “the provision of diversional activity” and with the following period in which attention centred on “the use of therapeutic activity” (Polatajko et al., 2007, p. 15). Townsend et al. (2007) reminded readers that enabling occupation had been defined in 1997 as “enabling people to choose, organize, and perform those occupations they find useful and meaningful in their environment” (p. 89). At the time this definition was originally published, choosing and organizing would probably have been considered tasks required to prepare for occupational performance. The newer definition of occupational therapy is based on the assertion that occupational therapists enable through occupation (Townsend et al., 2007). It reads:

The dictionary definition provided by Townsend et al. (2007) for the word enable refers to concepts of giving power, strengthening, providing with the ability or means to do something and with the means to do or be something, and making something possible. The definition of occupational therapy provided by the authors emphasizes three types of undertaking that are enabled: (a) people’s engagement in everyday life; (b) their performance of occupation; and (c) the development of a just society in which people can participate. For an occupational therapist to enable all three of these outcomes, their practice would need to be aimed at both personal and societal levels.

In recognition of the need to target both personal and societal levels, Townsend et al. (2007) identified six “categories of client” (p. 96) – individuals, families, groups, communities, organizations (including e.g. agencies, clubs and associations, and other government, corporate or non-government organizations) and populations. The authors stated that these categories evolved from four categories presented in the 1997 edition and this expanded view represents a practice that goes beyond working with individuals and might focus on the environment at the levels of client communities, organizations and populations. Detailed definitions of each of these client groups are provided on page 97 of Enabling Occupation II.

Client-centred practice is also fundamental to CMOP-E. Townsend et al. (2007) commented that client-centred practice means “focusing on client goals and projected outcomes” (p. 98) and pointed out that the following definition, provided in the 1997 edition of Enabling Occupation, had concepts of client-centred practice embedded within it. “Enabling is the basis of occupational therapy’s client-centred practice and a foundation for client empowerment and justice” (cited in 2007, p. 99). The assumption at the core of both enablement and client-centred practice is that occupational therapy involves “collaborating with people – rather than doing things to or for them” (p. 98). This statement needs to be understood in contrast to a biomedical approach in which ‘patients’ were primarily expected to be passive recipients of care or curative methods, rather than active participants in the process. Therefore, there might be things that client-centred and enabling occupational therapists do for people, such as advocate on their behalf for certain outcomes. However, these do not conjure the image of the passive patient.

Townsend et al. (2007) also noted that there has been a burgeoning of occupational therapy research around the notion of client-centred practice, which has not always “specifi[ed] the connection to enablement” (p. 99). However, the CMOP-E appears to assume a mutual relationship between the two concepts. This is evidenced in the statement, “In occupational therapy, client-centred practice delimits the definition of enablement; conversely enablement delimits the definition of client-centred practice” (Townsend et al., 2007, p. 99). The authors also stated that the challenges to client-centred practice are similar to those of enablement in that they can be encountered at the levels of the client and/or therapist and the broader systems surrounding them. Examples include the client’s culture and level of education, the therapist’s capacity to share power and recognize client expertise, and the management philosophies and resource distribution of the broader system.

CMOP-E specifies the domain of concern of occupational therapy by identifying the profession’s interest in person, environment and occupation, whereby it is through occupation that persons act on the environment. Enablement and client-centred practice are the processes through which occupational therapists facilitate occupational performance and engagement. As the CMOP-E does not specify this process of enablement, the Canadian Model of Client-Centred Enablement (CMCE) was developed. In the next section, both the Canadian Practice Process Framework and the Canadian Model of Client-Centred Enablement are discussed, to facilitate an understanding of the practice of occupational therapy using the CMOP-E.

Canadian Practice Process Framework and Canadian Model of Client-Centred Enablement (CMCE)

In this section, two processes are presented together as they both provide more detailed guidance for the practice of occupational therapy when using the CMOP-E. Each focuses on a different aspect of the occupational therapy process. The Canadian Practice Process Framework (CPPF) aims to make explicit the action points in the broader occupational therapy process, which occurs with the client within a broader societal and practice context. The Canadian Model of Client-Centred Enablement (CMCE) focuses on the encounter between occupational therapist and client (also called the therapeutic relationship in the broader occupational therapy literature) and aims to make explicit the process of enabling occupation in a client-centred way.

Canadian Practice Process Framework (CPPF)

Craik et al. (2007) stated that the CPPF for occupational therapy is “a process framework for evidence-based, client-centred occupational enablement” (p. 233). This framework seems to have been developed in response to the feedback obtained regarding the Occupational Performance Process Model (OPPM), published by Fearing et al. (1997), which was seen to be “useful to guide individualized practice” (pp. 231–232) but not designed for nor appropriate to practice with “community, organization, or population clients” (p. 232). In contrast, Craik et al. proposed that the CPPF can be used with all six categories of client discussed earlier in relation to enablement. The diagrammatic representation of the CPPF is presented in Figure 5.2.

FIG 5.2 The Canadian Practice Process Framework (CPPF).

From Elizabeth A. Townsend & Helene J. Polatajko, Enabling occupation II: Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being and justice through occupation, 2007. Reprinted with the permission of CAOT Publications ACE, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

As Craik et al. (2007) stated, “The CPPF guides the therapist through a process of occupation-based, evidence-based, and client-centred practice, which is directed towards enabling change in occupational performance and engagement. By utilizing the CPPF, an occupational therapist would identify eight key actions in enabling any type of client to reach occupational goals.” (p. 234.) These key action points include the commencement and conclusion of the process (called enter/initiate and conclude/exit) and six other general process points. These general points are: set the stage; assess/evaluate; agree on objectives, plans; implement plan; monitor/modify; and evaluate outcome.

As the diagram shows, while the six steps between entering and exiting the process are connected by solid arrows, indicating the general process of professional action, dotted arrows also indicate alternate paths. For example, a service that only provides assessment might follow a path through the first three action points and then proceed straight to the exit point, having only made recommendations. Similarly, one cycle through the pathway might not be sufficient to address the occupational issues identified, or the goals and desired outcomes might change as a result of the changes made during the first cycle through the pathway. Therefore, repeated cycles might be required. The diagram indicates that the whole process occurs within the broader societal and practice context. These two entities are separated by dotted lines to denote their interrelatedness. In addition, the six action points between entering and exiting the process occur in the context of a frame or frames of reference. This circle “indicates the professional knowledge the therapist brings to the process” (p. 235), which is “defined within the local practice and daily living context” (p. 251) and shaped by the broader societal context.

The first two action points in the CPPF are enter/initiate and set the scene. In these early steps, once the ‘client’ has been defined using one of the six categories of client (individual, family, group, organization, community or population), there is the need to establish a collaborative relationship and engage in processes such as rapport building, setting ground-rules, clarifying expectations and facilitating the client’s preparedness to proceed. Next follows assessment of “occupational status, dreams, and potential for change”, including analysis of “spirituality, person, and environmental influences on occupations” (p. 251). The fourth action point is to agree on objectives and plans. Negotiating an agreement requires a collaborative decision-making process and involves “reflecting upon the client’s occupational challenges, the priority occupational issues, and assessment/evaluation findings, including data on occupations and the personal and environmental factors influencing occupational engagement” (p. 258). The next three action points are typically included in descriptions of professional practice. These are to implement the plan, monitor and modify it as necessary and evaluate the outcome. The encounter is then concluded and the client exits. The flexibility of the path occurs when there is a change to the plan on the basis of the evaluation of the outcome or the client exits after some of the earlier action points.

Throughout the process, the importance of “client participation and power sharing as much as possible” (p. 251) is emphasized. The overall aim in following this process is to “enable the client to pursue occupational performance or engagement goals” (p. 234) and, therefore, goal attainment is the desired outcome of the process. Its relationship to the other two models is made explicit in the following statement, “This outcome [goal attainment] will be achieved by effective application of the CMOP-E, focused on occupation and using key enablement skills [of the CMCE]: adapt, advocate, coach, collaborate, consult, coordinate, design/build, educate, engage, and specialize” (p. 234). As each of the action points is discussed, the specific enablement skills from the CMCE relevant to that action point are presented.

Canadian Model of Client-Centred Enablement (CMCE)

While the CPPF outlines the action points within the occupational therapy process, the CMCE details the nature of the encounter between client and occupational therapist. Both are necessary for client-centred occupational therapy practice.

The CMCE was described as “a visual metaphor for client-centred enablement” and the stated purpose of client-centred enablement is to “advance a vision of health, well-being, and justice through occupation” (Townsend et al. (2007), p. 109). Its diagrammatic representation is presented in Figure 5.3. As the diagram shows, the CMCE represents the relationship between client and professional as two asymmetrical, curved lines that intersect in two places and enclose 10 alphabetically ordered verbs that identify the skills necessary for enablement (called enablement skills). Townsend et al. (2007) stated that the CMCE is based on two premises: “that enablement is occupational therapists’ core competency” and that “client-centred enablement is based on enablement foundations and employs enablement skills in a collaborative relationship with clients [of all six categories]” (p. 109). Central to the CMCE are enablement foundations and enablement skills. Each is described briefly.

FIG 5.3 The Canadian Model of Client-Centred Enablement.

From Elizabeth A. Townsend & Helene J. Polatajko, Enabling occupation II: Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being and justice through occupation, 2007. Reprinted with the permission of CAOT Publications ACE, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Townsend et al. (2007) listed six client-centred, occupation-based enablement foundations. These are: choice, risk, responsibility; client participation; visions of possibility; change; justice; and power-sharing. As they stated, “enablement foundations are the interests, values, beliefs, ideas, concepts, critical perspectives, and concerns that shape enablement reasoning and priorities” (p. 100). These enablement foundations appear to have been underpinned by a concern for equality of opportunity and the awareness that people with disabilities are marginalized in many societies and have reduced opportunities to access socially valued resources and roles. Each foundation is discussed.

These enablement foundations are central to creating client-centred enablement and underpin the CMCE. Within the CMCE, 10 enablement skills are also identified. These are (presented in alphabetical order to assist memory): adapt, advocate, coach, collaborate, consult, coordinate, design/build, educate, engage, and specialize. According to the authors, these ten skills were selected because they appeared to “capture the essence of occupational therapy” (p. 112) when field testing the list. However, they were also presented with other generic occupational therapy enablement skills, categorized as process, professional and scholarship skills (see Table 5.1 for the full list).

Table 5.1 Generic skills that underpin enablement

Townsend et al. (2007) outlined eight principles that underlie the use of enablement skills across the diversity of occupational therapy practice. These are:

Townsend et al. (2007) provided a one to two page discussion of each of the 10 enablement skills. However, they stated that these summaries “are intended to be introductory, not comprehensive. The brief outlines are intended to stimulate interest to describe and critically reflect on occupational therapy’s core competency in client-centred enablement” (p. 116). This statement is important to keep in mind when reviewing the descriptions provided here, which aim to provide only a very brief overview of the enablement skills. Each of the enablement skills is specifically linked to the first five of the seven competency roles published by the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. These five are: change agent, communicator, collaborator, expert in enabling occupation, practice manager, with practice scholar and profession being roles that underlie all of the enablement skills.

Enablement foundations and skills are used within the context of a client-centred relationship. Within the CMCE, the purpose of the relationship between client and occupational therapy professional is to enable “individual and social change” through occupation (p. 109). This change occurs in both an individual’s occupational performance and engagement and the “social structures that influence engagement in everyday life” (p. 109).

With reference to the CMCE diagram, Townsend et al. (2007) stated:

The points at which the two lines cross represent the entry and exit points in the occupational therapy process outlined in the CPPF and the presence of boundaries in the relationship. The 10 enablement skills discussed lie within the space bounded by the two lines and guide occupational therapy practice through all of the eight action points. In the CMCE, the entry and exit points can be used to frame a single interaction or the beginning and end of the entire occupational therapy process. “The boundaries of enablement will vary with the referral or contract, service conditions, the physical environment, and the socio-cultural, economic, political, and institutional context” (p. 111). While power imbalances are an inherent feature of professional−client relationships, the sharing of power is central to the client-centred approach upon which the CMCE is based.

In summary, the three practice models/frameworks presented in this chapter are designed to be used in combination. The CMOP-E provides the overall structure for conceptualizing occupational performance and engagement and the work of occupational therapists. The CPPF provides details about the generic process used by occupational therapists when working with clients, and the CMCE provides an action framework within which to conceptualize how occupational therapists work with their clients.

Historical description of the model’s development

The Canadian health system appears to have a greater degree of national integration and standardization than many other Western countries. Consistent with this trend, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT) has tended to publish position statements and theoretical frameworks that have aimed to guide occupational therapists across that nation in a more integrated way than any other Western country. This is not to suggest that the occupational therapy associations in other countries have not assembled national guidelines (the AOTA’s OTPF would be an example), but to place into a broader context the CMOP-E authors’ claim that the model is the “graphic representation of the Canadian perspective on occupation, or more specifically on occupational performance” (Polatajko et al. 2007, p. 27).

The CMOP-E was published as the CMOP in the first edition of Enabling Occupation (CAOT, 1997). According to Polatajko et al. (2007), CMOP was “updated from the Occupational Performance Model (OPM) that was presented in the 1991 CAOT guidelines” (p. 23). As has been emphasized throughout this book, the concept of occupational performance was a major focus of occupational therapy theorists writing in the 1990s. While occupational performance is an important concept in many occupational therapy models, the authors of Enabling Occupation II were careful to explain the difference between the CMOP and the CMOP-E by discussing the distinction between occupational performance and occupational engagement. They proposed that the latter, broader concept is “congruent” with current occupational therapy concerns (p. 24). Consistent with the periods in occupational therapy’s history described by Reed (2005) and Kielhofner (2009), the authors of the CMOP and CMOP-E stated that, “early in our history there was strong objection raised to describing our work as occupying people because of [the phrase’s] association with ordinary diversion of keeping busy, without the professional value of therapy” (Polatajko et al., 2007, p. 24). They claimed this emphasis might no longer be the case. (This is possibly due to a combination of the broader concepts of health pervading the wider Western health context and the renaissance of occupation that has occurred in occupational therapy.)

CMOP and CMOP-E form part of a long line of documents produced by CAOT. The 1997 edition of Enabling Occupation (CAOT, 1997) presented a review of the five major guidelines documents and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) produced by CAOT from 1980 to 1993. The introduction emphasized that all of these documents advocated client-centred practice and a focus on occupational performance. Three documents outlining guidelines for the client-centred practice of occupational therapy were produced in French and English between 1980 and 1987. The third guidelines document recommended the development of an outcome measure. As a result, the COPM was developed. According to CAOT, this assessment tool was based on the OPM presented in the 1983 guidelines. A fourth general guidelines document was published in 1991 and guidelines relating to client-centred practice in mental health were published in 1993. All of these guidelines were based on the OPM.

To place the development of the CMOP and CMOP-E within the context of these documents is important as both models have developed in conjunction with the progression from ideas in the Occupational Performance Model (with its inclusion of the concepts of performance components), through a focus on occupational performance in the CMOP, to the inclusion of the concept of occupational engagement in the CMOP-E. The influence of the earlier Occupational Performance Model on both CMOP and CMOP-E is evident in their concepts and some of their language. For example, the diagram used to represent the CMOP-E (see Figure 5.1) shows the person as having affective, cognitive and physical “performance components” (Polatajko et al., 2007, p. 23).

One of the major changes that occurred between the CMOP and the CMOP-E relates to the definition of the client. This probably reflects the changing nature of occupational therapy practice and the increasing diversity of roles that occupational therapists are undertaking as well as the changing concepts relating to health in the broader society. At the time the CMOP was developed, a main focus of CAOT was the principle of client-centred practice. The visual representation of CMOP showed the person in the centre of the diagram, surrounded by the three areas of occupation and the four aspects of the environment. This kind of approach aimed to emphasize the holistic, person-centred nature of the model. Law et al. (1997) stated, “The new Canadian Model of Occupational Performance presents the person as an integrated whole who incorporates spirituality, social and cultural experiences, and observable occupational performance components” (p. 41).

To provide clarification about their understanding of client, the authors wrote, “Clients are individuals who may have occupational problems arising from medical conditions, transitional difficulties, or environmental barriers, or clients can be organizations that influence the occupational performance of particular groups or populations” (p. 50). They also emphasized that the principles underpinning client-centred practice still apply to organizations, etc. as occupational therapists need to collaborate with clients and respect their decisions. More recently, the CMOP-E identified six categories of clients – individuals, families, groups, communities, organizations and populations. What is yet to be clarified is how the diagrammatic representation of this person-centred model that includes affective, cognitive and physical performance components relates to the practice with communities, organizations and populations.

Summary

CMOP-E is offered as representing the official position of the CAOT. It is a client-centred model that developed out of the occupational performance model tradition that was particularly influential in North America during the 1970s and 1980s. In the diagram, person, environment and occupation, the three major components of the model, are represented as three concentric layers surrounding an inner core. The individual is placed in the centre of the diagram with a core of spirituality surrounded by cognitive, affective and physical performance components. Three performance areas of self-care, productivity and leisure form the next layer of occupation. Physical, institutional, cultural and social environments form the outermost layer. Occupation is conceptualized as the bridge between person and environment.

CMOP-E is the second edition of the CMOP. It distinguishes between occupational performance and occupational engagement, in that people can engage in occupation without necessarily performing it. CMOP-E includes a broader definition of the client that uses the six categories of individuals, families, groups, communities, organizations and populations. In Enabling Occupation II, three models/frameworks are presented together to guide occupational therapists to facilitate occupational performance and engagement in a client-centred way.

Memory aid

See Box 5.1.

BOX 5.1 The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) memory aid

What category of client am I working with?

(individual, family, group, community, organization, population)

What are the client’s goals and what goal/s does our collaboration have?

What are the client’s spiritual (values-based) beliefs and how might they affect occupational performance and engagement?

(individual spirituality, the spiritual culture of a community/population, the ethical position of the organization)

What occupations have meaning for the client?

How would the client’s self-identity/purpose change if they were no longer able to perform or engage in those occupations?

What is the status of the client’s performance components (affective, cognitive & physical) and how might they affect occupational performance and engagement?

What are the physical, institutional, cultural and social aspects of the environment surrounding the client and how might they affect the client’s occupational performance and engagement?

How does the client interact with the environment through occupation?

(In what ways does occupation form a bridge between the person and the environment?)

Occupations the client performs to fulfil social roles

Occupations that give the client access to environmental resources

Which enablement skills do I need to use in this situation?

(Adapt, Advocate, Coach, Collaborate, Consult, Coordinate, Design/Build, Educate, Engage, Specialize)

Conclusion

In this chapter we examined the CMOP-E, originally published as the CMOP. The reason for the name change was the development in thinking from an emphasis on occupational performance alone to occupational performance and engagement. The rationale for this changed emphasis is that people can be engaged in occupation without performing it.

This model emphasizes the societal aspects of occupational performance and engagement in that it recognizes that, within society, people might have differing opportunities for engagement in and performance of occupation. This awareness of inequity and the barriers to occupation that disabled people often face is central to the model and expressed through the concept of justice. Because of this concern, occupational therapists can take on roles such as advocacy that are additional to traditional concepts of occupational therapy practice.

In this chapter, we presented not only the CMOP-E but also the CPPF and the CMCE. In combination, the three models aim to guide client-centred practice that focuses on promoting a just approach to occupational performance and enablement. In the chapter that follows, the Model of Human Occupation is presented. That is the model of practice that has influenced occupational theory and practice for the longest and most sustained period of time. As with the CMOP-E, it has important features of the model that are unique to that particular model.