Advertisement

Open and Abundant Data is the Future of Rehabilitation and Research

  • Duncan R. Babbage
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author Duncan R. Babbage, PhD, Centre for Person Centred Research, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
    Affiliations
    Centre for Person Centred Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
    Search for articles by this author
Published:December 30, 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.12.014

      Abstract

      Development of our current research practices has been driven by a number of assumptions and from operating within practical constraints. Technological change is beginning to remove many of these limits, although our research and practice has so far only gradually and partially evolved in response. The U.S. federal government is now mandating open data repositories for research that it funds. Policy changes regarding open data repositories and an increasing abundance of data arising from both research and practice provide the opportunity to revisit some assumptions. With abundant sources of data that may increasingly be collected automatically during rehabilitation, it seems fundamentally flawed that the resolution of the primary quantitative analysis approaches widely understood in our field is so limited by the need to contain the risk of false positives. Identification of more sophisticated approaches to our data, which may well already exist in the statistical literature, is a high priority.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. The White House/President Barack Obama. Executive Order – Making open and machine readable the new default for government information. 2013. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government-. Accessed August 17, 2013.

      2. Burwell SM, VanRoekel S, Park T, Mancini DJ. Open data policy—managing information as an assett. Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Washington (DC). 2013. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2013.

        • Strasser C.
        Closed data… excuses, excuses.
        Data Pub: California Digital Library Conversations about data Web site. 2013; (Available at:) (Accessed December 13, 2013)
        • Eichler H.G.
        • Abadie E.
        • Breckenridge A.
        • Leufkens H.
        • Rasi G.
        Open clinical trial data for all? A view from regulators.
        PLoS Med. 2012; 9: e1001202
        • Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
        OECD principles and guidelines for access to research data from public funding. 2007; (Accessed December 13, 2013)
      3. Databib. Available at: www.databib.org. Accessed December 13, 2013.

        • Adams J.A.
        • Bonk S.C.
        Electronic information technologies and resources: use by university faculty and faculty preferences for related library services.
        College and Research Libraries. 1995; 56: 119-131
        • Tenopir C.
        • King D.W.
        • Edwards S.
        • Wu L.
        Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns.
        New Information Perspectives. 2009; 61: 5-32
        • Chan L.
        • Costa S.
        Participation in the global knowledge commons: challenges and opportunities for research dissemination in developing countries.
        New Library World. 2005; 106: 141-163
        • Bell K.R.
        • Hammond F.
        • Hart T.
        • Bickett A.K.
        • Temkin N.R.
        • Dikmen S.
        Participant recruitment and retention in rehabilitation research.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 87: 330-338
        • Dobkin B.H.
        • Dorsch A.
        The promise of mHealth: daily activity monitoring and outcome assessments by wearable sensors.
        Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011; 25: 788-798
        • Yates A.J.
        Delayed auditory feedback.
        Psychol Bull. 1963; 60: 213-232
        • Lambert M.J.
        Emerging methods for providing clinicians with timely feedback on treatment effectiveness: an introduction.
        J Clin Psychol. 2005; 61: 141-144
        • Tesio L.
        Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research.
        J Rehabil Med. 2003; 35: 105-115
        • Jette A.M.
        • Haley S.M.
        Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment.
        J Rehabil Med. 2005; 37: 339-345
        • McPherson K.M.
        • Taylor W.J.
        • Leplege A.
        Rehabilitation outcomes: values, methodologies and applications.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2010; 32: 961-964
        • Conneeley A.L.
        Quality of life and traumatic brain injury: a one-year longitudinal qualitative study.
        Br J Occup Ther. 2003; 66: 440-446
        • Eilertsen G.
        • Kirkevold M.
        • Bjørk I.T.
        Recovering from a stroke: a longitudinal, qualitative study of older Norwegian women.
        J Clin Nurs. 2010; 19: 2004-2013
        • Levack W.M.
        • Kayes N.M.
        • Fadyl J.K.
        Experience of recovery and outcome following traumatic brain injury: a metasynthesis of qualitative research.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2010; 32: 986-999
        • Kersten P.
        • Ellis-Hill C.
        • McPherson K.M.
        • Harrington R.
        Beyond the RCT - understanding the relationship between interventions, individuals and outcome - the example of neurological rehabilitation.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2010; 32: 1028-1034
      4. Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center. Available at: www.msktc.org. Accessed December 13, 2013.

      5. The University of Alabama at Birmingham. NSCISC National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center. Available at: www.nscisc.uab.edu. Accessed December 13, 2013.

      6. National Data and Statistical Center. Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems. Available at: www.tbindsc.org. Accessed December 13, 2013.

      7. National Data and Statistical Center. For the Burn Model Systems. Available at: burndata.washington.edu. Accessed December 13, 2013.