How do occupational therapy and occupational science researchers conceptualize resilience? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept of resilience can be theorized at individual and/or collective levels—all indicating adaptation to disruption or stress. Within occupational science and occupational therapy, some researchers have asserted an important relationship between occupation and resilience. However, there has not yet been a published review of resilience in occupation-focused literature, despite calls for such research and the existence of resilience reviews in other disciplines. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodological guidelines, we aimed to summarize the characteristics of resilience research in occupational science and occupational therapy. Our inclusion criteria encompassed occupation- and resilience-focused empirical research articles published from 1990-2023. Our review question was: How is resilience conceptualized and operationalized in occupational therapy and occupational science research literature? We identified 222 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Results demonstrate inconsistent engagement with resilience definitions, theories, and outcome measures—though a predominantly psychological perspective on the concept was noted. Over half of included articles were published since 2020, illustrating an increasing interest in resilience among researchers. We highlight conceptualizations of resilience originating from occupational science and occupational therapy, including different uses of the term “occupational resilience”. We hope our study can be a starting point for further occupation-focused resilience research and, to that end, we include several recommendations for researchers and clinicians who are interested in resilience. Resilience is a highly relevant concept in occupational therapy, and we believe that the worldwide focus on how to become more resilient could benefit from the occupational perspective.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".