Disability and Rehabilitation (DISABIL REHABIL )

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Description

Disability and Rehabilitation is an international, multidisciplinary journal which seeks to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of disability, and to promote the rehabilitation process. The journal publishes review articles, experimental and clinical research papers, case studies, clinical commentaries, reports on rehabilitation in practice, rehabilitation engineering and major book reviews, spanning a range of issues including the severity and magnitude of disability, clinical medicine including gerontology, psychosocial adjustment, social policy issues, vocational and educational training, and rehabilitation engineering. Occasional special issues on specific themes of interest to the journalís readership are published.

  • Impact factor
    1.54
    Show impact factor history
     
    Impact factor
  • 5-year impact
    1.83
  • Cited half-life
    6.20
  • Immediacy index
    0.24
  • Eigenfactor
    0.01
  • Article influence
    0.49
  • Website
    Disability & Rehabilitation website
  • Other titles
    Disability and rehabilitation
  • ISSN
    0963-8288
  • OCLC
    25415346
  • Material type
    Periodical, Internet resource
  • Document type
    Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

Taylor & Francis

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 month embargo for STM, Behavioural Science and Public Health Journals
    • 18 month embargo for SSH journals
  • Conditions
    • Some individual journals may have policies prohibiting pre-print archiving
    • Pre-print on authors own website, Institutional or Subject Repository
    • Post-print on authors own website, Institutional or Subject Repository
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • On a non-profit server
    • Published source must be acknowledged
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Set statements to accompany deposits (see policy)
    • Publisher will deposit to PMC on behalf of NIH authors.
    • STM: Science, Technology and Medicine
    • SSH: Social Science and Humanities
    • 'Taylor & Francis (Psychology Press)' is an imprint of 'Taylor & Francis'
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • Disability and Rehabilitation 09/2013; Early online.
  • Disability and Rehabilitation 01/2013;
  • Disability and Rehabilitation 01/2013; Accepted.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose.To explore how therapy in a home and day hospital setting impacts on rehabilitation processes and outcomes from the perspective of the patients, their significant others and their treating occupational therapists. Method.Fourteen participants with severe traumatic brain injury received a one-to-one, goal-directed, client-centred outpatient occupational therapy programme (a) in their home for 6 weeks and (b) in a day hospital clinic for 6 weeks. The experience of rehabilitation in both settings was explored using semi-structured interviews with the participants, their significant others and their treating occupational therapists. Results.Participants and their significant others described the two environments as disparate with home-based therapy perceived as more relaxing, normal, satisfying and effective. The approach to therapy at home was commonly described as 'real-life' whereas the therapy approach in day hospital was characterised as 'simulation of real life tasks' and 'remedial exercises'. Participants' experience of therapy relationships at home was characterised as 'friendship', in which the therapist was a 'visitor', whereas in the hospital, participants were characterised as 'patients' and therapists as 'bosses' and 'teachers'. Conclusion.The experience of home-based therapy was perceived as more convenient, positive and preferred by patients and their family members. Therapists described more therapeutic benefits and the ability to work more effectively on activity and participation level goals in the client's real-life environment. Yes Yes
    Disability and Rehabilitation 01/2011; 33(13-14):1203-1214.
  • Disability and Rehabilitation 01/2011; 33:2416-2424.
  • Disability and Rehabilitation 01/2011;
  • Disability and Rehabilitation 06/2010;
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Indigenous peoples often have the worst health status in comparison to non-indigenous people in their own nations; urgent action to address the health inequities for indigenous people is required. The role of rehabilitation in addressing health and disability inequities is particularly important due to the health need of indigenous peoples; the unequal distribution of health determinants; and disparities in access to, quality of care through and outcomes following rehabilitation. This article will present a perspective for Māori, the indigenous peoples of New Zealand, on a framework for improving rehabilitation services for Māori and ultimately their health and wellbeing.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 04/2010; 32(12):972-7.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop an approach for achieving value for money in rehabilitation based on dynamic prioritisation of access to services according to individual capacity to benefit. A critical review of economic evaluation and adaptation of a prioritisation method used in determining access to elective surgical services in New Zealand to a rehabilitation context. The cost-effectiveness frontier is not straight but curved, suggesting that some people benefit more from a given intervention than others. An approach that identifies those most likely to benefit from inpatient rehabilitation following stroke (as an example) and enables access in order of capacity to benefit is presented in the context of a quality improvement programme. The approach is operationalised as a prioritisation tool that is dynamic in the sense that is can be reapplied subject to changes in the patient's clinical status. The steps proposed to develop such a tool include qualitative research with expert clinicians, pair-wise comparison of alternative scenarios (1000Minds survey), construction of an economic model of the tool's operation and an observational cohort study to help populate the model and calibrate the tool. A dynamic prioritisation approach to guide access to scarce health-care resources (such as inpatient rehabilitation following stroke) offers a transparent and equitable way of achieving value for money in the delivery of rehabilitation services.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 04/2010; 32(12):1020-7.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: While the limitations of self-report measures are clearly acknowledged, less apparent is attention to the potential limitations of their 'objective' counterparts leading to the assumption that objectivity results in more robust and scientifically valid measurement tools. This article aims to: (1) test this assumption; (2) consider the implications of advocating for a measure on the basis of its objectivity; (3) propose an alternative approach to measure selection. KEY FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS: A critical evaluation of one 'objective' measure highlights a number of potential limitations suggesting that the apparent willingness to adopt 'objective' measures with little questioning may be misguided. The possible implications of this are discussed and include a risk to the advancement of, and capacity for, knowledge in rehabilitation; or worse, of making clinical decisions based on erroneous conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Characterising a measure on the basis of objectivity (or not) assumes an overly simplistic dichotomy that is unhelpful and perhaps misleading. We argue that assessing whether a measure is fit for purpose and makes mathematical sense is the key consideration. Indeed, in some cases, using both an 'objective' measure and a subjective rating scale may be appropriate and the only way of truly capturing the phenomenon of interest.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 04/2010; 32(12):1011-9.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article aims to present a comprehensive conceptual model of the SCIRehab project, which merges the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) focus on outcomes with the practice-based evidence (PBE) research design, which focuses on process and also quantifies person and outcomes details. The SCIRehab methodology operationalised this conceptual model to implement the most data-intensive study of spinal cord injury to date. We discuss the conceptual and methodological contributions of SCIRehab and how this comprehensive research approach may complement randomised controlled trials. PBE methodology applied to the SCIRehab study used extensive clinician input to develop taxonomies of each discipline's interventions and an electronic point-of-care documentation system to capture extensive details of the rehabilitation process. Traditional medical record abstracting and follow-up surveys were used to capture details on patient characteristics and outcomes achieved by 12 months post-injury. Not applicable. Although data collection is not complete, the SCIRehab project has made major contributions to rehabilitation research, including a comprehensive conceptual model of person, process and outcome domains; discipline-specific taxonomies of rehabilitation interventions; and an electronic documentation system to capture details of the rehabilitation process.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 04/2010; 32(12):1035-42.
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rehabilitation is highly complex, involving multiple processes, outcomes and stakeholders. The way we deliver our services and work with our clients and their families should be informed by research approaches that produce the wide range of knowledge needed. This article aims to explore the degree to which the dominant approach to 'evidence' (the randomised clinical trial or RCT) meets those needs and discuss alternate/additional ways of gaining evidence. A critical review of the literature allowing exploration of problems encountered in rehabilitation RCTs and alterative approaches. We discuss some problematic issues related to using RCTs in rehabilitation research (for example the large number of people excluded from trials, and the small numbers of people with some neurological conditions making RCTs non-viable). Alternative approaches are discussed including clinical practice improvement studies (sometimes called practice-based evidence or PBE), which provide data on patients treated in routine practice; qualitative research, which can provide an understanding of the users of health care services to ensure they are meeting their needs; and metasynthesis, which can be used to summarise several qualitative studies to enhance our understanding of the principles underlying service delivery. Finally, we explore how clinicians and commissioners often use evidence generated by forms of research other than the RCT. The best answers about how to enhance rehabilitation outcomes are likely to come from a combination and integration of the most appropriate methods. In conclusion, we urge for more joined up thinking, for learning from different fields so that we can develop more effective and appropriate health care and rehabilitation.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 04/2010; 32(12):1028-34.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review models of rehabilitation and to consider factors that influence a models effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Narrative review, with consultation with researchers. Whether rehabilitation works is arguably best considered from the perspective of the person with disability. Rehabilitation models can generally be considered as 'complex interventions' for which specific research approaches have been defined. It is more likely to be accepted by the people involved, and be more likely to work, if the complex intervention paradigm is used and if rehabilitation operates at the level of activity and participation, as defined by the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Reasons for apparent 'non-effectiveness' of rehabilitation models are protean and can range from inadequately conceptualised health conditions, or interventions, to interference from 'active' control interventions, inappropriate outcome measures and, inadequate sample sizes. Many opportunities remain for future research into the effectiveness of models of rehabilitation and detection of what constitutes the crucial components.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 03/2010; 32(12):1051-8.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Just what defines a 'good' outcome in rehabilitation has been a much-debated issue. Indeed, this question remains a major focus in research, clinical practice and policy (with funding in many countries now being linked to outcomes achieved rather than outputs or services provided). Despite this rather constant attention, complexity, contention and confusion remain. This special issue presents 10 papers that take a fresh look at some of the long-standing problems concerning rehabilitation outcomes and, proposes novel ways to reconsider things and move forward. In this article, we provide a brief commentary on key issues raised by authors all of which focus on one or more of the following three key themes: the place of values in selecting and targeting outcomes; novel methodologies that may usefully inform measurement of outcome and finally; application of the thinking about outcomes in specific examples. The papers in this special issue address a number of key issues concerning the evaluation of outcomes in rehabilitation. In so doing, some of the prevalent assumptions underpinning common approaches are questioned and novel ways forward are proposed.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 03/2010; 32(12):961-4.

Related Journals