Exploring occupational participation and engagement during disaster through the lens of the Participatory Occupational Justice Framework

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction When communities affected by disaster are denied the physical, social, economic, or cultural resources or opportunities for engaging in necessary or meaningful occupation, the impact of disasters can be considered as a form of occupational injustice, predicating a corresponding focus on the restoration of occupational justice in disaster response and recovery.Method This study aimed to explore occupational participation and engagement during disaster and into recovery around Australia in the period 2019-2022 through a secondary analysis of purposively selected narratives from the recent publication Doing Our Best: Individual and Community Responses to Challenging Times (Occupational Therapy Australia (OTAustralia), 2022). Drawing on a critical realist ontology, this analysis utilised the Participatory Occupational Justice Framework (POJF) as a conceptual frame to explore narratives on the experiences of Australians during droughts, bushfires, floods, and the COVID-19 pandemic.Findings Findings highlighted an array of collaborative enabling processes intuitively enacted by participants in response to the occupational injustices experienced in disaster events. Findings illuminated the benefits that arose from community-driven action, suggesting participation in emancipatory action to restore occupational justice had transformative potential. Narratives illustrated the wider contextual drivers at local, national, and international levels which supported occupational participation and engagement, suggesting high levels of social capital could act as a key protective factor.Conclusion The analysis of narratives highlighted the importance of occupation during disaster and into recovery. Interpreting narratives through the POJF deepened understandings of occupational participation and engagement from a justice perspective.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.