Application of the Person-Environment-Occupation-Performance Model: A Scoping Review.
Julie D Bass, Josephine K Marchant, Stephanie L de Sam Lazaro and 1 others
PMID 38519867WHAT IT FOUND
A scoping review of 109 articles found the Person-Environment-Occupation-Performance (PEOP) model is widely used to frame research and practice across diverse populations.
It helps clinicians map how personal and environmental factors interact to influence performance, though definitions of participation vary.
Key findings
01The PEOP model was used in 109 peer-reviewed articles, with 44% published since 2020, indicating growing adoption.
02Most studies (62%) focused on individual clients, but 27% applied the model to organizations or populations, expanding its use beyond single-patient care.
03The model was applied across a wide range of conditions, with 25% of studies focusing on physical conditions and 25% on cognitive and behavioral conditions.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review did not assess the quality or strength of evidence in the included articles, only their existence and application. Only articles with more than 100 words discussing the model were analyzed for thematic depth, which may have missed brief but significant applications. Definitions of key constructs like “performance” and “participation” were inconsistent across the included studies. The search was limited to English-language publications.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The work was supported by non-U.S. government funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this as evidence that the PEOP model improves patient outcomes. This is a scoping review of how the model has been used in research and practice, not a meta-analysis of its effectiveness. The included studies varied widely in design and quality, and the review did not evaluate whether using the model led to better clinical results.