{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02280501710376283, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00798175598631699, 'mean_word_length': 5.055172413793104, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Critical Analysis of the Model of Human Occupation

The aim of this paper is to begin a dialogue regarding the use of the Model of Human Occupation (MOHO) (Kielhofner, 1995). Three questions formed the basis for discussion: 1. Is the MOHO consistent with the values and beliefs of occupational therapy?; 2. Does the MOHO support the intervention process in occupational therapy? and; 3. Is the MOHO consistent and applicable to the current regulations and societal values in Sweden? The authors propose that the MOHO must be further developed in order to support assessment and intervention in occupational therapy. Specifically, they find the MOHO lacking with regard the influence of the environment on human behaviour, appreciation of the dialectic process between the human and the environment, and of the importance of the subsystem volition in the intervention process.