Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The LWM is the Content Model that best captures my view of recreational therapy practice. According to Carruthers and Hood (2007), within health and human services, a fundamental paradigm change is taking place that has the potential to determine the future of therapeutic recreation. LWM was created by Carruthers and Hood and was first introduced in their publication in 2007. LWM captures this paradigm shift and reflects the new reality of recreational therapy practice and the healthcare system in the country in general.
Under the previous paradigm, the major goal of health and human services was deficit reduction or alleviation of problems that the patient has had. However, there has been a growing recognition that just eliminating deficiencies or issues do not always result in healthy and thriving individuals and, as a result, communities (Carruthers & Hood, 2007). The new paradigm focuses on recognizing and fostering the strengths and talents of individuals, as well as the institutions and societies that enable them to thrive and progress toward well-being. Hence, therapeutic recreation (TR) has the potential to play an important role in assisting clients in creating a meaningful life. Therefore, the main strength of the LWM is that it addresses problems that are beyond mere problem solving, and a recreational therapist using LWM contributes to the patient living a healthy and fulfilled life.
The theory that guides this model is viewing the person as a whole instead of looking at separate health concerns or illnesses. Working with the complete person has long been emphasized inTR (Carruthers & Hood, 2007). However, this concentration has been offset by the necessity to survive in health and human care institutions, which have a deficit-reduction priority. The profession’s subsequent trend toward deficit reduction or issue resolution is clearly apparent in introductory and advanced TR textbooks (Carruthers & Hood, 2007). However, as practice shows, this simplistic approach does not allow help patients to help a fulfilling life, even if their health-related concerns are addressed. Hence, this model is based on the idea that more has to be done to address the health and recreation of a person.
I choose this model because I support viewing an individual as a whole, considering their health state, values, goals in life, and habits. This helps choose a recreational therapy activity that is more suited for this individual and is better adjusted to their needs. The LMW is suitable for the type of recreational therapy I want to practice because it allows for working with versatile groups of patients. Hence, I would be able to choose the facility and community I want to work with, and since I have an interest in sports and activities, I could work with patients who can integrate physical activity into their lives. Moreover, this model has many strengths as opposed to previous RT paradigms, as discussed above. However, there is a significant limitation described by Hood and Carruthers (2016) as follows: “there are many factors that may impact the well-being, some of which are not included in the model because they are not amenable to change or are outside the scope” (p. 277). Thus, many factors are not a part of this model, which can be an issue when working with patients in real life. Hence, the direction of the practice and research should be dedicated to expanding this model to ensure that it addresses all essential factors.
References
Carruthers, C. & Hood, C. (2007). Building a life of meaning through therapeutic recreation: The leisure and well-being model, part I. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 41(4), 276-297.
Hood, C. & Carruthers, C. (2016). Strengths-based training program development using the leisure and well-being model. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, L(1), 4-20.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.