CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Occupational Therapy Practice and ResearchMental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth, Medicine and Society

Boundaries and bridges to adult mental health: Critical occupational and capabilities perspectives of justice

Townsend, Elizabeth A.·2012·Journal of Occupational Science
DOI 10.1080/14427591.2011.639723
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is general agreement that mental health is a foundation for living well. Unfortunately, approximately 20% of people around the world will experience a mental health issue at some point. Although bridges to adult mental health, such as community programming, exist in some settings, one routine boundary is exclusion from everyday occupations, using the occupational science and occupational therapy definition of occupations encompassing what people need and want to do and be in occupying everyday life in context. The 2nd Townsend and Polatajko Lectureship invites interdisciplinary knowledge exchange with a critical occupational perspective on the question: What lessons on boundaries and bridges to adult mental health can be drawn by connecting the capabilities and occupational frameworks of justice? Using an institutional textual analysis, the Lectureship focuses on three lessons drawn from connecting the 2010 Framework of Occupational Justice (FOJ) and the 2006 Central Human Capabilities Framework (CHCF).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14427591.2011.639723

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Perspectives such as Occupational Justice and the Capabilities Framework ground an understanding of what people can do and be in the structural and contextual conditions that support or restrict possibilities for doing, and thereby could locate time use scholarship and practice in the realm of social justice.

    “For example, perspectives such as Occupational Justice (90) and the Capabilities Framework (91, 92) ground an understanding of what people can do and be in the structural and contextual conditions that support or restrict possibilities for doing, and thereby could locate time use scholarship and practice in the realm of social justice.”

    From Contributions of a time use perspective in community mental health practice: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [90]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Townsend, E. A.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Townsend, Elizabeth A.
ORCID
Townsend, Elizabeth A.
Venue
Journal of Occupational Science
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2012-01-18
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
8-24
ISSN
  • 1442-7591 (ISSN-L)
  • 2158-1576
DOI
10.1080/14427591.2011.639723
OpenAlex
W2167650911
Cited by
66
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
14.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Occupational Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
adult mental health, occupational justice, human capabilities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review