odel of care to address the client presenting with PPD. As this model represents a bridge between the top-down and bottom-up approach, which is largely controversial in the current transition of the occupational therapy paradigm, it was selected to illustrate the interconnectedness of the various components as outlined within the model's flowchart. Many occupationally focused models of care can be applied to the intervention process and may serve to be beneficial when considered in parallel to the existing representation of the Adapted Biopsychosocial Model’s application.
Other options for appropriate models of occupation that can be utilized in the creation of individualized clinical care plans include (Turpin & Iwama, 2011):
Occupational Performance Model (AUSTRALIA) (OPMA)
Occupational Adaptation (OA)
Person—Environment—Occupation—Performance (PEOP) Model
Person—Environment—Occupation (PEO) Model of Occupational Performance
Ecology of Human Performance
Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) as a component of the larger text entitled Enabling Occupation II (EO-II)
Model of Human Occupation (MOHO)
* The included PDF offers an expanded articulation of the use of each model as outlined in previous sections.
Regardless of the model of intervention that is selected by the evaluating therapist to initiate the assessment and intervention process, the most crucial element of the therapist's decision making should be focused upon occupation. In this, that the means by which intervention is delivered is focused upon occupation as an actionable task of daily doing, and that it is meaningful and purposeful to the lived experience and need for desired outcomes within the individual.
COMPLEMENTARY INTERVENTIONS AS ACTIONABLE PURSUITS
The universally recommended standard practice for treating PPD is through a first line intervention of antidepressants and psychotherapy (APA, 2019). However, there is a growing trend within the postpartum population toward an increased preference for integrative or complementary practices to address their recovery needs (McCloskey & Reno, 2019; Nguyen, 2017). Fear of adverse side-effects and negative impact to the baby while breastfeeding contribute to the aversion toward pharmaceutical interventions, while lack of ability to dedicate time to the committed process of psychotherapy contributes to the avoidance and non-compliance with standard recommendations of intervention (McCloskey & Reno, 2019; Nguyen, 2017). Particularly within highly vulnerable populations of low-socioeconomic and ethnic minority groups are these front-line interventions considered unattainable, and more and more are women turning to, even preferring, alternative and complementary methods of treatment (McCloskey & Reno, 2019; Nguyen, 2017).
Chiarmonte, Ring, and Locke (2017) indicate that as many as 75% of women within the general population are utilizing complimentary therapies. The most commonly utilized interventions being mind-body practices and dietary supplements, with use of these therapies being made by self-referral rather than in collaboration with a healthcare professional (Chairmonte, Ring, & Locke, 2017). The authors strongly advocate that physicians and other healthcare professionals should educate themselves on integrative approaches of such practices in order to support patient-centered preferences and approach the needs of women’s health concerns from an integrative perspective.
While complementary and alternative health care practices were once considered distinctly other than traditional models of westernized medicine, there is an ongoing shift within the contemporary health care practices of the United States, Canada, United Kingdom (UK), and Australia toward a more holistic and integrative view of health and medicine (Hilbers & Lewis, 2013). This shifting paradigm within the medical model acknowledges the benefits of complementary and conventional approaches when used in combination to support physical, social, psychological, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing (Hilbers & Lewis, 2013