Background/objective The home environment should foster the independence, participation, and safety of its inhabitants. However, the presence of environmental barriers, especially for individuals with disabilities, can negatively impact their functioning, reducing well-being and quality of life at home. Occupational therapy plays a crucial role in this context, offering holistic evaluation processes and strategies for effective home modifications to improve occupational performance. To our knowledge, no comprehensive mapping of these tools exists. Therefore, this study conducts a scoping review to map and critically describe the home assessment instruments currently used within the field of occupational therapy. Methods A scoping review following a systematized approach was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR recommendations for scoping reviews, involving an online bibliographic search complemented by the consultation of grey literature. A two-phase screening process was performed to systematically identify the instruments referenced. Results Ninety-three articles were included, identifying twenty-nine home assessment tools applied in occupational therapy. These instruments presented notable differences in their format, target population, aspects assessed, and the degree of user participation during the evaluation process, among other characteristics. Conclusion This scoping review mapped 29 home assessment tools, revealing a strong focus on environmental factors but a critical gap in assessing personal factors, occupations, and social roles. While most instruments demonstrate acceptable reliability and validity, there is an urgent need for more robust psychometric studies, tools validated as clinical outcome measures, and the cultural adaptation of holistic, person-centered assessments to effectively guide home modifications. Project Registration, OSF https://osf.io/8bmu9 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guillén et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: