Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the , , , ,
In association with
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063
Online ISSN 1973-9095
Tederko P. 1, 2, Krasuski M. 1, Denes Z. 2, 3, Moslavac S. 2, 4, Likarevic I. 4
1 Medical University of Warsaw, Department of Rehabilitation, Warsaw, Poland;
2 European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Warsaw, Poland;
3 National Institute for Medical Rehabilitation, Budapest, Hungary;
4 Special Hospital for Medical Rehabilitation, Varazdinske Toplice, Croatia
BACKGROUND: Physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) is a relatively new and dynamically developing branch of the contemporary medicine. The unique role of PRM is bridging pure clinical outcomes with overall functional improvement. The concepts of disability and rehabilitation may be difficult to comprehend by medical students (MS) and doctors representing specialties other than physical and rehabilitation medicine (NPRMS).
AIM: to assess the level of knowledge of NPRMS and MS regarding the role of PRM in health care systems in Poland, Hungary and Croatia.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study.
STUDY GROUP: 314 MS, 288 NPRMS and 119 PRM trainees (PRMT).
METHOD: anonymous questionnaire inquiring of basic issues on disability and rehabilitation. RESULTS: Knowledge of definitions of a person with disability and PRM was poor (MS: 58% and 35%, NPRMS: 39% and 30%, PRMT: 72% and 62%). Prevalence of disability was correctly estimated by 58% of MS and 62% of doctors. 76% of MS, 72% of NPRMS and 99% of PRMT perceived PRM as a basic medical specialty. Leading role of PRM physician in comprehensive management of patients with stroke, multiple injury, spinal cord injury and congenital limb defect was perceived respectively by 42%, 49%, 53% and 64% of respondents. Functional statement as an important criterion in referring a patient for rehabilitation was perceived by 48% of NPRMS. Discussion: Inadequate perception of the PRM role in health care system results from the lack of unified programme and scope of PRM in under- and post-graduate medical education, inappropriate allocation of funds in public PRM services, and claims of certain paramedical professions to extend their qualifications over interventions assigned to PRM doctors.
CONCLUSIONS: Low knowledge of PRM among all studied groups testifies to the inadequacy of education of the medical community in rehabilitation.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The existing system of under- and postgraduate education of PRM should be urgently rearranged according to European harmonised guidelines.