An Occupational Perspective on Psychedelic Therapy: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Interest in the use of psychedelics for mental health therapy is burgeoning. Qualitative research methods are increasingly used to understand patient's experiences; however, there is a lack of literature that explores psychedelic use from an occupational perspective. Purpose. To conduct a scoping review of qualitative literature on the experiences of psychedelic use for the purpose of mental health therapy, through an occupational lens. Key Issues. Wilcock’s occupational perspective of health was employed to analyze the use of psychedelics in mental health from an occupational perspective. Despite heterogeneous therapy contexts and substances used, patients reported comparable benefits regarding occupational engagement, such as increased mindfulness and autonomy in doing, a renewed sense of being, greater motivation to grow and become, and an improved sense of connection and belonging. Implications. This review demonstrates how psychedelic use in the context of mental health support can be experienced as a meaningful occupation and may contribute to overall health. In turn, this review highlights the utility of an occupational perspective for “non-sanctioned” or stigmatized occupations like psychedelic use, as well as the need for more research on psychedelic use from an occupational perspective. Using an occupational perspective of health can help to de-stigmatize psychedelic use as a meaningful occupation, rather than a deviant one, and shed light on how psychedelics may also positively impact one's participation in everyday life and overall health.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".