Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2019 June;55(3) > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2019 June;55(3):331-41

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN REHABILITATION RESEARCH. REPORT FROM A COCHRANE REHABILITATION METHODOLOGY MEETING Freefree

European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2019 June;55(3):331-41

DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05793-9

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Optimizing the real-world impact of rehabilitation reviews: increasing the relevance and usability of systematic reviews in rehabilitation

Nicola M. KAYES 1 , Rachelle A. MARTIN 2, Felicity A. BRIGHT 1, Paula KERSTEN 3, Alex POLLOCK 4

1 Center for Person-centered Research, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; 2 Rehabilitation Teaching and Research Unit, University of Otago and Burwood Academy of Independent Living, Christchurch, New Zealand; 3 School of Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK; 4 Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK



BACKGROUND: Despite a growing portfolio of rehabilitation reviews, uptake of review findings into practice remains slow, with review findings perceived to be lacking in relevance and usability for stakeholders. Key aspects of review design, production and dissemination have been identified to contribute to this knowledge translation (KT) gap.
AIM: The aim of this study is to identify strategies relevant to rehabilitation review design, production and dissemination which have the potential to optimize uptake of review findings into practice.
RESULTS: Two strategies are discussed, drawing on case examples of existing rehabilitation reviews, including: 1) involving stakeholders in review design, production and dissemination; and 2) moving towards theory-based, mixed methods review design. The merits of these strategies are discussed with reference to the unique and specific characteristics of the rehabilitation context, where there is complexity inherent in the multiple interacting components across population, intervention, context and implementation processes.
CONCLUSIONS: Moving towards theory-based, mixed methods reviews which involve stakeholders may be a critical first step in supporting uptake of review findings into rehabilitation practice. Doing so also has the potential to support advances in knowledge and practice in rehabilitation through theory development, as well as creating the context for evidence-based practice.


KEY WORDS: Translational medical research; Stakeholder participation; Systematic review

top of page