Advertisement

The Value of Rehabilitation Interventions—Integrating Evidence, Clinical Expertise, Critical Assessment, and Patient Needs: A Conference Report

  • Elliot J. Roth
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author Elliot J. Roth, MD, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, 355 E. Erie Street, 14th floor, Chicago, IL 60611.
    Affiliations
    Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

    Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, IL
    Search for articles by this author
  • T. George Hornby
    Affiliations
    Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN

    Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN
    Search for articles by this author
Published:February 06, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.02.001

      Abstract

      To understand issues related to the value, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions, and to explore how scientific evidence, clinical expertise, and patient needs can be integrated, the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Developing Optimal Strategies in Exercise and Survival Skills to Increase Health and Function held a State of the Science Symposium on “The Value of Rehabilitation Interventions” at Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago in 2017. During this conference, 35 invited experts, including individuals with disabilities, professionals, and consumers, explored the topic of the “value” of rehabilitation interventions and discussed their perspectives on the means to integrate best scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences. This symposium also resulted in the production of several multifaceted articles providing perspectives on the topic of value and how to use evidence to best determine and demonstrate it. These articles comprise this supplement. The present article introduces the key concepts of value, evidence, and knowledge translation in an effort to provide a context for the articles that follow in the supplement.

      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

        • Keehan S.P.
        • Cuckler G.A.
        • Sisko A.M.
        • et al.
        National health expenditure projections: modest annual growth until coverage expands and economic growth accelerates.
        Health Aff. 2012; 31: 1600-1612
        • Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
        Report to the Congress: reforming the delivery system.
        (Available at:)
      1. Govinfo. Public law 111-145–March. 23, 2010.
        (Available at:)
        • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
        Bundled payments for care improvement (BPCI) initiative: general information.
        (Available at:)
        • White C.
        • Ginsburg P.B.
        Slower growth in Medicare spending–is this the new normal?.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 1073-1075
        • Bond W.
        Creating incentives for accountability in patient care.
        Virtual Mentor. 2013; 15: 522-528
        • Mazorati C.
        • Pravettoni G.
        Value as the key concept in the health care system: how it has influenced medical practice and clinical decision-making processes.
        J Multidiscp Healthc. 2017; 10: 101-106
        • Shortell S.M.
        • Zazzali J.L.
        • Burns L.R.
        • et al.
        Implementing evidence-based medicine: the role of market pressures, compensation incentives, and culture in physician organizations.
        Med Care. 2001; 59: I62-78
        • Porter M.E.
        What is value in health care?.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 2477-2481
        • Graham J.E.
        • Granger C.V.
        • Karmarkar A.M.
        • et al.
        The Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation: report of follow-up information on patients discharged from inpatient rehabilitation programs in 2002-2010.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014; 93: 231-244
        • Harvey R.L.
        • Roth E.J.
        • Yu D.T.
        • Celnik P.
        Stroke syndromes.
        in: Braddom R.L. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 4th ed. Elsevier, Philadelphia2011: 1177-1222
        • Ng Y.
        • Stein J.
        • Ning M.
        • Black-Schaffer R.M.
        Comparison of clinical characteristics and functional outcomes of ischemic stroke in different vascular territories.
        Stroke. 2007; 38: 2309-2324
        • DeVivo M.J.
        Trends in spinal cord injury rehabilitation outcomes from model systems in the United States: 1973-2006.
        Spinal Cord. 2007; 45: 713-721
        • Irdesel J.
        • Aydiner S.B.
        • Akgoz S.
        Rehabilitation outcome after traumatic brain injury.
        Neurocirugia. 2007; 18: 5-15
        • Sackett D.L.
        • Rosenberg W.M.
        • Gray J.A.
        • Haynes R.B.
        • Richardson W.S.
        Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t.
        BMJ. 1996; 312: 71-72
        • Oberg E.
        Physical activity prescription: our best medicine.
        Integr Med. 2007; 6: 18-22
        • Phillips E.M.
        • Kennedy M.A.
        The exercise prescription: a tool to improve physical activity.
        PM R. 2012; 4: 818-825
        • Hornby T.G.
        • Straube D.S.
        • Kinnaird C.R.
        • et al.
        Importance of specificity, amount, and intensity of locomotor training to improve ambulatory function in patients poststroke.
        Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011; 18: 293-307
        • Cherney L.R.
        Aphasia treatment: intensity, dose parameters, and script training.
        Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012; 14: 424-431
        • Hornby T.G.
        • Reisman D.S.
        • Ward I.G.
        • et al.
        Clinical practice guideline to improve locomotor function following chronic stroke, incomplete spinal cord injury, and brain injury.
        J Neurol Phys Ther. 2020; 44: 49-100
        • Baker E.
        Optimal intervention intensity in speech-language pathology: discoveries, challenges, and unchartered territories.
        Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012; 14: 478-485
        • United States Census Bureau
        Americans with disabilities.
        (Available at:) (Accessed May 9, 2022)
        • Jordan N.
        • Deutsch A.
        Why and how to demonstrate the value of rehabilitation services.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S172
        • Fahey M.
        • Brazg G.
        • Henderson C.E.
        • Plawecki A.
        • Lucas E.
        • Reisman D.S.
        • Schmit B.D.
        • Hornby T.G.
        The value of high intensity locomotor training applied to patients with acute-onset neurological injury.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S178
        • Henderson C.E.
        • Fahey M.
        • Brazg G.
        • Moore J.L.
        • Hornby T.G.
        Predicting discharge walking function with high-intensity stepping training performed during inpatient rehabilitation in non-ambulatory patients post-stroke.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S189
        • Hornby T.G.
        • Rafferty M.
        • Pinto D.
        • French D.
        • Jordan N.
        Cost-effectiveness of high-intensity training versus conventional therapy for individuals with subacute stroke.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S197
        • Cherney L.R.
        • Van Vuuren S.
        Complexity and feedback during script training in aphasia: A pilot randomized controlled trial.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S205
        • Boyer N.
        • Jordan N.
        • Cherney L.R.
        Implementation cost analysis of an intensive comprehensive aphasia program.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S215
        • Magasi S.
        • Papadimitriou C.
        Peer support interventions in physical medicine and rehabilitation: A framework to advance the field.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S222
        • Moore J.L.
        • Virva R.
        • Henderson C.
        • Lenca L.
        • Butzer J.F.
        • Lovell L.
        • Roth E.
        • Graham I.
        • Hornby T.G.
        Applying the knowledge-to-action: implementation of a gait and balance assessment battery in inpatient stroke rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S230
        • Butzer J.F.
        • Virva R.
        • Lenca L.
        Commentary on the challenges and benefits of implementing standardized outcome measures.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S246
        • Moore J.L.
        • Graham I.D.
        Accelerating the implementation of evidence-based practices in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S252
        • Moore J.L.
        • Mbalilaki J.A.
        • Graham I.D.
        Knowledge translation in rehabilitation: a citation analysis of the knowledge-to-action literature.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S256
        • Romney W.
        • Bellows D.M.
        • Tavernite J.P.
        • Salbach N.
        • Deutsch J.E.
        Knowledge translation research to promote behavior changes in rehabilitation: use of theoretical frameworks and tailored interventions: a scoping review.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 103: S276